Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita ... · Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike Congressional Research Service

Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes

Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike

Updated February 26, 2019

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R43139

Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike


Summary This report provides information on federal financial assistance provided to the Gulf States after

major disasters were declared in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in response

to the widespread destruction that resulted from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005 and

Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008.

Though the storms happened over a decade ago, Congress has remained interested in the types

and amounts of federal assistance that were provided to the Gulf Coast for several reasons. This

includes how the money has been spent, what resources have been provided to the region, and

whether the money has reached the intended people and entities. The financial information is also

useful for congressional oversight of the federal programs provided in response to the storms. It

gives Congress a general idea of the federal assets that are needed and can be brought to bear

when catastrophic disasters take place in the United States. Finally, the financial information from

the storms can help frame the congressional debate concerning federal assistance for current and

future disasters.

The financial information for the 2005 and 2008 Gulf Coast storms is provided in two sections of

this report:

1. Table 1 of Section I summarizes disaster assistance supplemental appropriations enacted

into public law primarily for the needs associated with the five hurricanes, with the

information categorized by federal department and agency; and

2. Section II contains information on the federal assistance provided to the five Gulf Coast

states through the most significant federal programs, or categories of programs.

The financial findings in this report include:

Congress has appropriated roughly $121.7 billion in hurricane relief for the 2005

and 2008 hurricanes in 10 supplemental appropriations statutes.

The appropriated funds have been distributed among 11 departments, 3

independent agencies/entities, numerous sub-entities, and the federal judiciary.

Congress appropriated almost half of the funds ($53.8 billion, or 44% of the

total) to the Department of Homeland Security, most of which went to the

Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) administered by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

Congress targeted roughly 22% of the total appropriations (almost $27 billion) to

the Department of Housing and Urban Development for community development

and housing programs.

Approximately 20% ($25 billion) was appropriated to Department of Defense

entities: $15.6 billion for civil construction and engineering activities undertaken

by the Army Corps of Engineers and $9.2 billion for military personnel,

operations, and construction costs.

FEMA has reported that roughly $5.9 billion has been obligated from the DRF

after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma to save lives and property through

mission assignments made to over 50 federal entities and the American Red

Cross (see Table 19), $160.4 million after Hurricane Gustav through 32 federal

entities (see Table 20), and $441 million after Hurricane Ike through 30 federal

entities (see Table 21). In total, federal agencies obligated roughly $6.5 billion

for mission assignments after the five hurricanes.



The Small Business Administration approved almost 177,000 applications in the

region for business, home, and economic injury loans, with a total loan value of

almost $12 billion (Table 31 and Table 32).

The Department of Education obligated roughly $1.8 billion to the five states for

elementary, secondary, and higher education assistance (Table 12).

This report also includes a brief summary of each hurricane and a discussion concerning federal

to state cost-shares. Federal assistance to states is triggered when the President issues a major

disaster declaration. In general, once declared the federal share for disaster recovery is 75% while

the state pays for 25% of recovery costs. However, in some cases the federal share can be

adjusted upward when a sufficient amount of damage has occurred, or when altered by Congress

(or both). In addition, how much federal assistance is provided to states for major disasters is

influenced not only by the declaration, but also by the percentage the federal government pays for

the assistance. This report includes a cost-share discussion because some of these incidents

received adjusted cost-shares in certain areas.



Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Hurricane Katrina ...................................................................................................................... 1 Hurricanes Rita and Wilma ....................................................................................................... 3 Hurricanes Gustav and Ike ........................................................................................................ 5

Information Categories and Data Collection Methods .................................................................... 7

Caveats and Limitations .................................................................................................................. 8

Section I: Summary of Gulf Coast Disaster Supplemental Appropriations .................................... 9

Section II. Agency-Specific Information on Gulf Coast Hurricane Federal Assistance ................ 13

Department of Agriculture ...................................................................................................... 14 Agricultural Research Service .......................................................................................... 15 Farm Service Agency ........................................................................................................ 15 Natural Resources Conservation Service .......................................................................... 18 Forest Service ................................................................................................................... 18 Rural Housing Service ...................................................................................................... 21 Rural Utilities Service ....................................................................................................... 21

Department of Commerce ....................................................................................................... 22 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .......................................................... 22 Economic Development Administration Economic Adjustment Assistance

Program.......................................................................................................................... 23 Department of Defense (Civil) ................................................................................................ 24

Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................................................. 24 Department of Defense (Military) .......................................................................................... 24

Military Personnel ............................................................................................................. 24 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................. 25 Procurement ...................................................................................................................... 25 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .................................................................. 25 Military Construction (MILCON) and Family Housing ................................................... 25 Management Funds ........................................................................................................... 26 Other Department of Defense Programs ........................................................................... 26

Department of Education ........................................................................................................ 27 Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................................. 27 Higher Education .............................................................................................................. 29

Department of Health and Human Services ............................................................................ 32 Administration for Children and Families ........................................................................ 32 Public Health and Medical Assistance .............................................................................. 34 Administrative Waivers ..................................................................................................... 36 Public Health Emergency Fund ........................................................................................ 36

Department of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 37 Federal Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................ 37 FEMA Mission Assignments by Federal Entity ................................................................ 39

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)....................................................... 43 Community Development Block Grants ........................................................................... 43 Rental Assistance/Section 8 Vouchers .............................................................................. 44 Supportive Housing .......................................................................................................... 45 Public Housing Repair ...................................................................................................... 46



Inspector General .............................................................................................................. 46 Department of Justice .............................................................................................................. 46

Legal Activities ................................................................................................................. 47 United States Marshals Service ........................................................................................ 48 Federal Bureau of Investigation ........................................................................................ 49 Drug Enforcement Administration .................................................................................... 50 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ................................................... 51 Federal Prison System (Bureau of Prisons) ...................................................................... 52 Office of Justice Programs ................................................................................................ 53

Department of Labor ............................................................................................................... 55 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Dislocated Worker Activities ........ 55

Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 57 Federal Highway Administration: Emergency Relief Program (ER)................................ 57 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ............................................................................ 58 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ............................................................................... 58

Department of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................................... 59 Medical Center in New Orleans ........................................................................................ 59 Armed Forces Retirement Homes ..................................................................................... 60

Corporation for National and Community Service ................................................................. 61 Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................................... 61

Hurricane Emergency Response Authorities .................................................................... 62 EPA Hurricane Response .................................................................................................. 63 Funding Narrative ............................................................................................................. 63 EPA Regular Appropriations ............................................................................................. 65

The Federal Judiciary .............................................................................................................. 66 Small Business Administration ............................................................................................... 66

Disaster Assistance Program ............................................................................................. 66

Cost-Shares and Programmatic Considerations: Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and

Rita ............................................................................................................................................. 68

Administrative and Congressional Waivers of Cost-Shares .................................................... 68

Concluding Observations and Policy Questions ........................................................................... 69

Potential Methods for Controlling Costs Associated with Major Disasters ............................ 72 Rationale for Keeping the Disaster Assistance the Same.................................................. 72 Limiting the Number of Major Disaster Declarations Being Issued ................................. 72 The Use of State Capacity Indicators ................................................................................ 73 Expert Panels .................................................................................................................... 74 Emergency Loans .............................................................................................................. 74 Changes to the Stafford Act .............................................................................................. 75 Reducing the Amount of Assistance Provided Through Declarations .............................. 76

Policy Questions...................................................................................................................... 76

Figures

Figure 1. Hurricane Katrina ............................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Hurricane Rita .................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3. Hurricane Wilma .............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 4. Hurricane Gustav ............................................................................................................. 6

Figure 5. Hurricane Ike.................................................................................................................... 7



Figure 6. Major Disaster Declarations ........................................................................................... 71

Tables

Table 1. Estimated Gulf Coast Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,

Wilma, Gustav, and Ike .............................................................................................................. 10

Table 2. Disaster Relief Funding by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 2005 Gulf

Coast Hurricanes ........................................................................................................................ 14

Table 3. 2005 Hurricane Disaster Relief Payments for Crops and Livestock by State ................. 16

Table 4. 2008 Agricultural Disaster Relief Program Payments by State ....................................... 16

Table 5. Disaster Relief Funding Through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program .......... 18

Table 6. Forest Service Programs Used to Grant Assistance after Hurricanes in 2005 and

2008 ............................................................................................................................................ 19

Table 7. Forest Service 2005 and 2008 Hurricane Recovery Funding .......................................... 20

Table 8. Disaster Relief Funding for Commercial Fisheries ......................................................... 22

Table 9. Disaster Relief Funding Appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers ..................... 24

Table 10. Disaster Relief Funding by the Department of Defense (Military) ............................... 26

Table 11. Disaster Relief Funding Administered by the Department of Education

Provided in Response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike .......................................... 31

Table 12. Disaster Relief Funding for Programs at the HHS Administration for Children

and Families ............................................................................................................................... 34

Table 13. Disaster Relief Funding for Crisis Counseling, Mental Health, and Substance

Abuse Services ........................................................................................................................... 36

Table 14. Disaster Relief Funding for Health Care Costs and Infrastructure ................................ 37

Table 15. Disaster Relief Funding for Communications Equipment and Mosquito

Abatement .................................................................................................................................. 37

Table 16. Disaster Relief Funding by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike ..................................................................... 38

Table 17. Mission Assignment Funding by Agency: Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Rita ......... 39

Table 18. Mission Assignments by Agency: Hurricane Gustav .................................................... 41

Table 19. Mission Assignments by Agency: Hurricane Ike ........................................................... 42

Table 20. Distribution of CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds for Selected States, by Disaster

Declaration ................................................................................................................................. 44

Table 21. Disaster Relief Funding by the Department of Housing and Urban

Development .............................................................................................................................. 46

Table 22. Disaster Relief Funding for the Department of Justice .................................................. 54

Table 23. Disaster Relief Funding by the Department of Labor .................................................... 56

Table 24. Emergency Relief Obligations for Gulf Coast Hurricanes ............................................ 58

Table 25. Disaster Relief Funding by Modal Administration/Program ......................................... 59

Table 26. Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA): P.L. 109-148 and P.L. 109-234 ......................................................... 64

Table 27. Disaster Relief Funding by the Federal Judiciary .......................................................... 66

Table 28. Small Business Administration: Number of Approved Disaster Assistance

Loans For the Five Hurricanes ................................................................................................... 67



Table 29. Small Business Administration: Approved Disaster Loan Applications by

Amount ....................................................................................................................................... 67

Table 30. Disaster Relief Fund Annual Appropriations FY2007-FY2016 .................................... 70

Table A-1. Contributing Authors ................................................................................................... 78

Appendixes

Appendix. Contributing Authors ................................................................................................... 78

Contacts

Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 79


Congressional Research Service 1

Introduction This report provides a comprehensive summary of the federal financial assistance provided to the

Gulf Coast states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in response to the

widespread destruction that resulted from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005 and

Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008.

The damages caused by the hurricanes are some of the worst in the history of the United States in

terms of lives lost and property damaged and destroyed. The federal government played a

significant role in the response to the hurricanes and Congress appropriated funds for a wide

range of activities and efforts to help the Gulf Coast states recover and rebuild from the storms. In

addition, Congress appropriated a significant amount of funds for mitigation activities and

projects to reduce or eliminate the impacts of future storms.

Though the storms happened over a decade ago, Congress remains interested in the types and

amounts of federal assistance that were provided to the Gulf Coast for several reasons. For one,

Congress continues to be interested in how the money has been spent, what resources have been

provided to the region, and whether the money has reached the people and entities intended to

receive the funds. The financial information is also useful for congressional oversight and

evaluation of the federal entities that were responsible for response and recovery operations.

Similarly, it gives Congress a general idea of the federal assets that are needed and can be brought

to bear when catastrophic disasters take place in the United States. As such, the financial

information from the storms can help frame the congressional debate concerning federal

assistance for current and future disasters.

The financial information provided in this report includes a summary of appropriations provided

to the Gulf Coast states by Congress in response to the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes. In addition,

when available, hurricane-specific and state-specific funding information is provided by federal

entity.

Background1 The 2005 hurricane season was a record-breaking season for hurricanes and storms. There were

13 hurricanes in 2005, breaking the old record of 12 hurricanes set in 1969.2 The 2005 season also

set a record for the number of category 5 storms (three) in a season.3 Most of the damaging

effects caused by the hurricanes were experienced in the Gulf Coast states of Louisiana,

Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas. The 2008 hurricane season was also an active

hurricane season that caused additional damage in the Gulf Coast.

Hurricane Katrina

On August 23, 2005, Hurricane Katrina began about 200 miles southeast of Nassau in the

Bahamas as a tropical depression. It became a tropical storm the following day. On August 24-25,

2005, the storm moved through the northwestern Bahamas and then turned westward toward

southern Florida. Katrina became a hurricane just before making landfall near the Miami-

Dade/Broward county line during the evening of August 25, 2005. The hurricane moved

1 This section was coauthored by Bruce Lindsay, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance

Division; and Jared Nagel, Information Research Specialist, Government and Finance Division.

2 “Colorado State U. Review Finds 2005 Hurricane Season ‘Most Active,’” Insurance Journal, February 5, 2006.

3 Ibid.



southwestward across southern Florida into the eastern Gulf of Mexico on August 26, 2005.

Katrina then strengthened significantly, reaching Category 5 intensity on August 28. On August

29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in southern Plaquemines Parish, LA. The storm

affected a broad geographic area—stretching from Alabama, across coastal Mississippi, to

southeast Louisiana. Hurricane Katrina was reported as a category 4 storm when it initially made

landfall in Louisiana, but was later downgraded to a category 3 storm. Even as a category 3

storm, Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest storms to impact the U.S. Gulf Coast. The

force of the storm was significant. The winds to the east of the storm’s center were estimated to

be nearly 125 mph (see Figure 1).4

Figure 1. Hurricane Katrina

Source: Assistance information obtained from Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disasters, available at

https://www.fema.gov/disasters; storm path information obtained from National Oceanic Atmospheric

Administration, Historical Hurricane Tracks, available at https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/.

Notes: Public Assistance covers the repairs or replacement of infrastructure (roads, bridges, public buildings,

etc.) but also includes debris removal and emergency protective measures which may cover additional costs for

local public safety groups incurred by their actions in responding to the disaster. Individual Assistance includes

various forms of help for families and individuals following a disaster event. The assistance authorized by the

Stafford Act can include housing assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, crisis counseling, and other

programs intended to address the needs of people.

The Gulf Coast has had a history of devastating hurricanes, but Hurricane Katrina was singular in

many respects. Approximately 1.2 million people evacuated from the New Orleans metropolitan

4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Hurricanes in History.” See Katrina, available at

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/#katrina.



area.5 While the evacuation helped to save lives, over 1,800 people died in the storm.6 In addition,

Hurricane Katrina destroyed or made uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes7 and displaced

over 400,000 citizens.8 Economic losses from the storm were estimated to be between $125

billion and $150 billion.9

Hurricanes Rita and Wilma

Two other hurricanes made landfall in the Gulf Coast shortly after Hurricane Katrina that added

to recovery costs and impeded recovery efforts. On September 24, 2005, Hurricane Rita made

landfall on the Texas and Louisiana border as a category 3 storm. Rita also hit parts of Arkansas

and Florida. Hurricane Rita caused widespread property damage to the Gulf Coast; however,

there were few deaths or injuries reported.10 Rita produced rainfalls of 5 to 9 inches over large

portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and eastern Texas, with isolated amounts of 10 to 15 inches.11

In addition, storm surge flooding and wind damage occurred in southwestern Louisiana and

southeastern Texas, with some surge damage occurring in the Florida Keys (see Figure 2).12

5 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation

Still Unprepared, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 109-322 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 42.

6 See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climate Data Center Billion-Dollar

Weather/Climate Disaster website, available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.

7 The White House, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 23, 2006, p. 7, available

at http://library.stmarytx.edu/acadlib/edocs/katrinawh.pdf.

8 Kimberly A. Geaghan, Forced to Move: An Analysis of Hurricane Katrina Movers, U.S. Census Bureau, SEHSD

Working Paper, Washington DC, June 2011, p. 1, available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-

surveys/ahs/working-papers/HK_Movers-FINAL.pdf.

9 Kristy Frame, Lynne Montgomery, and Christopher Newbury, Bank Performance after Natural Disasters: a

Historical Perspective, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, January 16, 2006, available at http://www.fdic.gov/

bank/analytical/regional/ro20054q/na/2005_winter01.html.

10 This may have been the result of Texas and Louisiana officials evacuating over 3 million residents before Rita made

landfall. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Hurricanes in History” available at

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/#rita.

11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center, “Hurricanes in History,” available at

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history.

12 Ibid.



Figure 2. Hurricane Rita










On October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane in Cape Romano,

FL. The eye of Hurricane Wilma crossed the Florida Peninsula and then moved into the Atlantic

Ocean north of Palm Beach (see Figure 3).13 Hurricane Wilma killed five people in Florida and

caused widespread property damage in the Gulf Coast region.

13 Ibid.



Figure 3. Hurricane Wilma










Hurricanes Gustav and Ike

In 2008, the Gulf Coast was once again affected by storms that caused billions of dollars in

additional damage. On September 1, 2008, Hurricane Gustav made landfall near Cocodrie, LA, as

a category 2 storm, then swept across the region causing damages in Alabama, Florida,

Mississippi, and Texas (see Figure 4). Gustav produced rains over Louisiana and Arkansas that

caused moderate flooding along many rivers, and is known to have produced 41 tornadoes: 21 in

Mississippi, 11 in Louisiana, 6 in Florida, 2 in Arkansas, and 1 in Alabama.14

14 John L. Beven II and Todd B. Kimberlain, Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Gustav, National Hurricane Center,

AL072008, January 22, 2009, p. a, available at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL072008_Gustav.pdf.



Figure 4. Hurricane Gustav










Hurricane Ike made landfall as a category 2 storm near Galveston, Texas, on September 13, 2008,

with maximum sustained winds of 110 mph. The hurricane weakened as it moved inland across

eastern Texas and Arkansas. Hurricane Ike’s storm surge devastated the Bolivar Peninsula of

Texas, and surge, winds, and flooding from heavy rains caused widespread damage in other

portions of southeastern Texas, western Louisiana, and Arkansas and killed 20 people in these

areas (see Figure 5).15 Additionally, as an extratropical system over the Ohio Valley, Ike was

directly or indirectly responsible for 28 deaths and more than $1 billion in property damage in

areas outside of the Gulf Coast.16

15 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center, “Hurricanes in History,” available at

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history.

16 Ibid.



Figure 5. Hurricane Ike










Information Categories and Data Collection

Methods The following two sections provide funding data and narratives describing the assistance that was

provided to the Gulf Coast in response to the 2005 and 2008 hurricane seasons. Section I presents

funding provided to the five Gulf Coast states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and

Texas) after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike. Funding amounts were compiled

by CRS analysts who reviewed legislative texts of supplemental appropriations. The amounts are

disaggregated by federal entity and sub-entity, insofar as possible and applicable. The data are

based on the analysts’ interpretations of disaster assistance. Some data were excluded from

Section I because CRS analysts found that the data either were too ambiguous or covered

disasters not limited to the Gulf Coast. Certain amounts pertaining to a range of disasters were

included, however, because CRS analysts determined that most of the funds went to the Gulf

Coast states.



Section II presents funding by federal agency. The amounts reported may reflect expenditures,

obligations, allocations, or appropriations. The data in this section are not based solely on those in

Section I. Rather, the data in Section II were derived from a variety of authoritative sources,

including agency websites, CRS experts who received information directly from agencies, and

governmental reports. Section II presents funding information by federal entity and includes a

narrative summarizing each agency’s disaster assistance efforts. The sections also provide the

authorities that authorized the activities that were provided. When possible, funding data are

provided in tabular form.

It should be noted that the data on appropriations in Section I, Table 1, are not directly

comparable to funding data in Section II. The former were drawn solely from the public laws

cited in the source note to Table 1. The data in Section II were obtained, as cited in each

subsection, from a range of published and unpublished sources, and include various fiscal years.

Caveats and Limitations Funding data on federal (and non-federal) assistance are not systematically collected. Given the

absence of comprehensive federal information on disaster assistance, the data provided in this

report should only be considered as an approximation, and should not be viewed as definitive.

In addition to the above, the following caveats apply to this report:

It is difficult to identify all of the federal entities that provide disaster relief

because many federal entities provide aid through a wide range of programs, not

necessarily through those designated specifically as “disaster assistance”

programs.17

Because data on federal (and non-federal) assistance are not systematically

collected, funding data were drawn from a wide-range of sources including

published and unpublished data that have been collected at different times and

under inconsistent reporting methods.

Following the exodus of thousands of residents from the Gulf Coast states after

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, many other states received federal assistance to cope

with the influx of those seeking aid. The aid provided to the states outside the

Gulf Coast is not discussed in this report.

The appropriations language reviewed for Section I usually designates funds to a

federal entity for a range of disasters without identifying how much funding is to

be disbursed to each incident. For example, P.L. 110-329, signed into law on

September 30, 2008, provided funds for several disasters that occurred in 2008,

including Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, wildfires in California, and the Midwest

floods. Determining the funding amounts directed toward each individual disaster

is difficult, if not impossible, unless the legislative text specifies these amounts.

An additional difficulty occurs in tracking funding at the agency level because

appropriations might be made, not to specific entities, but to budget accounts,

and then allocated for specified purposes.

The degree of transparency in reporting funding levels for disaster relief varies

tremendously among federal entities. As an example, Congress requires the

17 For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program

also provides vouchers for disaster victims.



Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to submit monthly status

reports on the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).18 The DRF is FEMA’s disaster

assistance account. The DRF is used to fund existing recovery projects (including

reimbursements to other federal agencies for their work) and provide funding for

future emergencies and disasters as needed. The DRF reports must detail

obligations, allocations, and expenditures for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and

Wilma. This requirement has not been extended to other agencies, and scant data

exist, particularly on a state-by-state basis, on other federal funding for

emergencies and major disasters.

Appropriations may be subject to transfers or rescissions after enactment of

appropriations statutes. It is possible that such emendations to the initial

appropriations have not been identified in this research.

In addition to the above caveats, it should also be noted that there may have been funding changes

since this report was originally published in 2013 that are not represented in this updated version.

In some cases, additional obligations may have been provided and in other cases some funding

may have been recouped or otherwise transferred. The funding information in this report should

therefore be interpreted as illustrative as opposed to definitive, and used with appropriate caution.

Section I: Summary of Gulf Coast Disaster

Supplemental Appropriations Table 1 presents data on the appropriations enacted after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma,

Gustav, and Ike from FY2005 to FY2009, by federal entity and sub-entity, when possible and

applicable. As mentioned earlier, in many cases funding for disaster relief is appropriated for

multiple incidents. Therefore, Table 1 may include data on appropriations that also provided

funding for non-Gulf Coast incidents. Some appropriations designated for a range of disasters

were excluded, however, in an attempt to avoid artificially inflating the amount of funding

directed to the Gulf Coast for hurricane relief.

Since FY2005, at least 10 appropriations bills have been enacted to address widespread

destruction caused by the 2005 and 2008 Gulf Coast hurricanes. These appropriations consisted of

eight emergency supplemental appropriations acts, one reconciliation act, and one continuing

appropriations resolution.19 In addition to these statutes that specifically identify the hurricanes or

the Gulf Coast states, it is likely that regular appropriations legislation also provided assistance to

the Gulf Coast. Because these statutes did not specify that they were providing such assistance,

regular appropriations are not included in Table 1.

18 P.L. 110-161, codified at 42 U.S.C. §5208.

19 These include P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-171, P.L. 109-234, P.L. 110-28, P.L. 110-116, P.L.

110-252, P.L. 110-329, and P.L. 111-32.



Table 1. Estimated Gulf Coast Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina,

Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike

(Disaster-Related Supplemental Appropriations by Department/Agency; Nominal Dollars in Millions)

Department/Agency/Program Estimated

Appropriation

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program $82

Agricultural Research Service $39

Emergency Conservation Program $73

Farm Service Agency $242

Executive Operations $60

Food and Nutrition Service Commodity Assistance $10

Forest Service $77

Inspector General *

Natural Resources Conservation Service $351

Other Emergency Appropriations *

Rural Housing Service $90

Rural Utility Service $53

Subtotal $1,077

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Department of Commerce (non specified) $400

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration $85

Marine Fishery Emergency Assistance Program $260

Subtotal $745

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (MILITARY)

Military Personnel $540

Operations and Maintenance $3,684

Procurement $2,850

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation $54

Military Construction and Family Housing $1,785

Management Funds $66

Other Defense $236

Subtotal $9,215a

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (CIVIL)

Army Corps of Engineers Construction $4,951

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies $9,926

Flood Damage Construction for FEMA *

Mississippi River and Tributaries $154

General Expenses $3




Appropriation

Investigations $43

Operations and Maintenance $516

Subtotal $15,593

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education $1,689

Office of Postsecondary Education $292

Subtotal $1,981

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration $4

Administration for Children and Families $1,240

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $8

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services $2,000

Subtotal $3,252

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Department of Homeland Security (non-specified) $9,157

Customs and Border Protection $52

Federal Emergency Management Agency $44,083b

Immigration and Customs Enforcement $13

Office of Domestic Preparedness $10

Office of Inspector General $2

United States Coast Guard $487

United States Secret Service $4

Subtotal $53,711

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Community Development Block Grants $26,200

Rental Assistance/Section 8 Vouchers $555

Supportive Housing $73

Public Housing Repair $15

Office of Inspector General $7

Subtotal $26,850

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Department of the Interior $210

Bureau of Reclamation $9

Mineral Management Service $31

National Park Service $117

National Park Service Historical Preservation Fund *




Appropriation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $162

U.S. Geological Survey $16

Subtotal $545

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives $20

Drug Enforcement Administration $10

Federal Bureau of Investigation $45

Federal Prison System $11

Legal Activities $18

Office of Justice Programs $175

U.S. Marshals Service $9

Subtotal $288

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Job Corps $16

Employment and Training Administration $125

Subtotal $149

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Department of Transportation (non-specified) $722

Federal Aviation Administration $41

Federal Highway Administration $2,751

Federal Transportation Administration Grants *

Maritime Administration $8

Subtotal $3,522

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Department Administration $62

Veterans Health Administration $198

Major Construction—Medical Facilities $918

Subtotal $1,178

ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

Armed Forces Retirement Home $242

Subtotal $242

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Environmental Protection Agency (non-specified) $21

Subtotal $21

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

General Services Administration (non-specified) $75




Appropriation

Subtotal $75

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Small Business Administration (non-specified) $2,279

Disaster Loans Program Account $441

Inspector General $5

Subtotal $2,725

THE JUDICIARY

The Federal Judiciary (non specified) $18

Subtotal $18

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (non-

specified)

$385

Exploration Capabilities as a Consequence of Katrina *

Subtotal $385

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY

SERVICE

Corporation for National and Community Service $10

Subtotal $10

Grand Total $121,671

Source: Data derived from CRS database of appropriations. Statutes include P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62, P.L. 109-

148, P.L. 109-171, P.L. 109-234, P.L. 110-28, P.L. 110-116, P.L. 110-252, P.L. 110-329, and P.L. 111-32. This table

does not take into consideration any rescissions applied after Congress appropriated these funds.

Notes: * Signifies appropriation of less than $1 million. Cells marked as “non-specified” indicate appropriations

funded to a department generally.

a. This figure represents the amount appropriated after rescission of funds; it does not reflect that $1.5 billion

of these funds expired in FY2006 or were transferred for other purposes.

b. P.L. 109-62 (119 Stat. 1991) appropriated $50 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund. P.L. 109-148 (119 Stat.

2790) rescinded $23.4 billion of those funds.

Section II. Agency-Specific Information on Gulf

Coast Hurricane Federal Assistance In the course of this research, CRS identified 11 federal departments, 4 federal agencies (or other

entities), and numerous sub-entities, programs, and activities that supplied over $121.7 billion in

federal assistance to the Gulf Coast states after the major hurricanes of 2005 (Katrina, Rita, and

Wilma) and 2008 (Gustav and Ike). Section II provides information on the most significant

programs, or categories of programs, through which the aid was provided. Each narrative contains

a summary of activities of each federal entity providing disaster relief. When possible, the

information is presented in tabular form and is disaster and state specific. Unless otherwise

specified, all figures are stated in nominal dollars.



As mentioned earlier, the data in Section II may not correspond to the emergency funds

appropriated by Congress for hurricane relief purposes specified in Section I. Reasons for the

difference include the following:

the tables in Section II present information from a variety of funding measures,

including obligations, allocations, and expenditures;20

some funds made available may have been reallocated or deobligated from other

purposes; and

money from accounts that did not terminate at the end of a fiscal year (known as

no-year accounts) may have been allocated to the Gulf Coast states.

Department of Agriculture21

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a variety of disaster assistance for

hurricanes and other natural disasters. For the hurricanes covered in this report, the bulk of the

department’s funding has been disaster payments to producers who suffered production losses

and funding for land rehabilitation programs for cleanup and restoration projects, primarily under

P.L. 109-234 and through other authorities.22 The total USDA budget authority was over $1.0

billion for disaster relief following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma (Table 2). For these three

hurricanes, USDA also paid an additional $112 million in farm disaster benefits to farmers in the

Gulf States under various Farm Service Agency indemnity and grant programs, using funds

allocated from USDA’s “Section 32” Program (see “Farm Service Agency” section below).23

Hurricane-related support by individual agency for the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes is described in

separate sections below. State-specific data are provided where available and are current as of the

dates cited.

Table 2. Disaster Relief Funding by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 2005 Gulf

Coast Hurricanes

(Dollars in Thousands)

Department of Agriculture Budget Authority Obligations Outlays

Agricultural Research Service $39,000 $38,000 $37,000

Farm Service Agency

Disaster payments-crop/livestock losses (excludes

Section 32)

$132,300 $132,300 $132,300

Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program

(EFCRP)

$81,800 $81,800 $68,600

20 For a discussion of funding terminology, see CRS Report 98-410, Basic Federal Budgeting Terminology, by Bill

Heniff Jr.

21 This section was authored by the following individuals in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division: Megan

Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy; Katie Hoover, Specialist in Natural

Resources Policy; Tadlock Cowan, Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development; and Randy Alison

Aussenberg, Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.

22 In many cases, these other authorities have been amended or repealed by Congress and are no longer valid. For a

discussion of current agricultural disaster assistance programs, see CRS In Focus IF10565, Federal Disaster Assistance

for Agriculture, by Megan Stubbs; CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by Megan Stubbs; or CRS

Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by Megan Stubbs.

23 For more information on Section 32, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32

Program, coordinated by Jim Monke.



Department of Agriculture Budget Authority Obligations Outlays

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) $84,700 $73,400 $44,800

Food and Nutrition Service $10,000 $10,000 $9,000

Forest Service $77,000 $77,000 $77,000

Office of Inspector General $445 $445 $445

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) $351,000 $300,000 $287,000

Rural Housing Service $128,000 $101,000 $63,000

Rural Utilities Service $53,000 $34,000 $14,000

Working Capital Fund $60,000 $59,000 $59,000

Total $1,017,245 $906,945 $792,145

Source: Budget Data Request No. 11-31 requested June 27, 2011, and provided July 20, 2011. Submission by

Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to Office of Management and Budget.

Notes: Figures are for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in support of Gulf Coast recovery efforts and

include disaster payments made under P.L. 109-234. Excludes disaster payments made under Section 32 (see

Table 3) and disaster payments made under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246,

2008 farm bill, see Table 4).

Agricultural Research Service

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is USDA’s chief scientific research agency. Under P.L.

109-234, USDA received funding for cleanup and salvage efforts at the ARS facility in

Poplarville, MS, and the Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans, LA. Total budget

authority was $39 million for the 2005 hurricanes provided under P.L. 109-234 and through

reallocations from existing funds.

Farm Service Agency

The mission of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is to serve farmers, ranchers, and agricultural

partners through the delivery of agricultural support programs. Besides administering general

farm commodity programs, FSA administers disaster payments for crop and livestock farmers

who suffer losses from natural disasters. Following the 2005 hurricanes, producer benefits were

provided under five new programs created by USDA for tropical fruit, citrus, sugarcane, nursery

crops, fruits and vegetables, livestock death, feed losses, and dairy production and spoilage

losses. These USDA-created programs were the Hurricane Indemnity Program (HIP), Livestock

Indemnity Program (LIP), Feed Indemnity Program (FIP), and an Aquaculture Grant Program

(AGP). Payments under the previously established Tree Indemnity Program (TIP) were provided

to eligible owners of commercially-grown fruit trees, nut trees, bushes, and vines producing

annual crops that were lost or damaged.24

Total outlays for 2005 hurricanes to the Gulf States under the aforementioned five programs were

$132 million under P.L. 109-234 (see Table 2) and $112 million for four programs under “Section

32” (see Table 3 for Section 32 data). Section 32 is a permanent appropriation (originating from

24 As previously stated, all of these programs have been amended, repealed, or are no longer valid. For a discussion of

current agricultural disaster assistance programs, see CRS In Focus IF10565, Federal Disaster Assistance for

Agriculture, by Megan Stubbs.



P.L. 74-320) that supports a variety of USDA activities, including disaster relief, federal child

nutrition programs, and surplus commodity purchases.25

Table 3. 2005 Hurricane Disaster Relief Payments for Crops and Livestock by State


Alabama Florida Louisiana

Mississippi

North

Carolina Texas Total

Hurricane Indemnity

Program (HIP) $3,002 $31,164 $3,049 $2,061 — $282 $39,558

Tree Indemnity

Program (TIP) $604 $18,144 $376 $833 — $28 $19,985

Feed Indemnity

Program (FIP) $902 $1,719 $1,050 $1,156 — $27 $4,854

Livestock Indemnity

Program (LIP) $265 $709 $19,238 $2,148 — $701 $23,061

Aquaculture Grant

Program (AGP) $5,038 $3,663 $4,513 $10,738 $313 $661 $24,690

Total $9,811 $55,399 $28,226 $16,936 $313 $1,699 $112,384

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, November 6, 2017.

Notes: Latest payment data available from USDA for 2005 hurricanes, as of November 6, 2017; the above

programs were administered by FSA with funding allocated from USDA’s “Section 32” Program.

Following Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, payments were provided to qualifying producers

under five nationwide agricultural disaster programs authorized in the Food, Conservation, and

Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, 2008 farm bill). Under the largest disaster program,

Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (SURE),26 the combined payments for

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas totaled $285 million in 2008 for a variety of

natural disaster losses, including hurricane damage (Table 4). Payments for these states under the

other four programs (three livestock-related programs and the Tree Assistance Program (TAP))

were approximately $66 million.27

Table 4. 2008 Agricultural Disaster Relief Program Payments by State


Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Supplemental Revenue Assistance

Payments Program (SURE) $5,005 $12,932 $13,068 $4,993 $249,002 $285,000

Livestock Forage Program (LFP) $9,002 $2,688 — — $40,182 $51,872

Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) $34 $64 $1,301 $91 $6,359 $7,849

25 USDA is currently limited in its authority to distribute emergency payments to farmers under “Section 32” authority

(as well as with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds). In annual appropriations acts between FY2012 and

FY2017, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to pay for salaries and expenses needed to operate a

farm disaster program under either of these two funding sources. However, in FY2017 (Section 715 of FY2017

Agriculture Appropriations Act, P.L. 115-31), Congress amended this prohibition to allow such payments from

available carryover funding up to $75 million.

26 SURE authority expired in 2011 and was not reauthorized.

27 The LFP, LIP, ELAP, and TAP programs were amended and reauthorized under section 1501 of the Agricultural Act

of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, 2014 farm bill).



Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Emergency Assistance for Livestock,

Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish

Program (ELAP)

$81 $2,918 $776 $10 $659 $4,443

Tree Assistance Program (TAP) — $1,802 < $1 — $146 $1,948

Total $14,122 $20,404 $15,145 $5,094 $296,348 $351,112

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, November 6, 2017.

Notes: Programs were authorized under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, 2008

farm bill). Payments as of November 6, 2017, and made for a variety of natural disaster losses that included more

than just hurricane damage.

FSA also administered two land rehabilitation disaster programs: (1) the Emergency Forestry

Conservation Reserve Program (EFCRP),28 which compensated private, nonindustrial forest

landowners who experienced losses from hurricanes in calendar year 2005, for temporarily

retiring their land; and (2) the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP),29 which provides

emergency funding and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland

damaged by natural disasters.

For the 2005 hurricanes, Congress provided $82 million in budget authority for EFCRP and $84.7

million in budget authority for ECP. Of the $84.7 million in budget authority for ECP, FSA

obligated over $70 million. Previously unobligated funds from 2005 hurricane recovery efforts

were reprogrammed in 2009 under P.L. 111-32 to be used for then current disasters, including

hurricanes. On July 14, 2009, USDA announced $71 million in ECP funding, which included the

2005 reprogrammed funds, for repairing farmland damaged by natural disasters, including the

hurricanes that occurred in 2008. Of the five hurricane-affected states, Texas received the largest

allocation ($11 million) to address 2008 hurricane restoration efforts.

Food and Nutrition Service30

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers several programs that are crucial in hurricane

relief efforts.31 These include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly

known as the Food Stamp Program (FSP)), child nutrition programs (e.g., school meals

programs), and federally donated food commodities delivered through relief organizations.

Existing laws authorize USDA to change eligibility and benefit rules to facilitate emergency aid.

Disaster FSP benefits provided approximately $1 billion worth of support directly due to

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike.32 Assistance provided by FSP (now, SNAP)

28 Authorized by §107(a) of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address

Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148), as amended. This program was

repealed under section 2702(a) of the 2014 farm bill.

29 Authorized in Section 401 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-334) as amended and codified under 16

U.S.C. §§2201-2205. For more information on ECP and other land rehabilitation programs, CRS Report R42854,

Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by Megan Stubbs.

30 The section was authored by Randy Aussenberg, Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy.

31 For further information on Food and Nutrition Service’s disaster relief authorities and actions generally, see USDA-

FNS website, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/disasters/disaster.htm. For additional detail on federal food

assistance provided for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, CRS Report RL33102, Federal Food Assistance in Disasters:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by Joe Richardson.

32 USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2008 Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, p. 27g-13;

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2010 Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, p. 26g-48.



and the child nutrition programs required no additional appropriations because the benefits are

treated as entitlements.

Other than a small one-time increase in appropriations, in P.L. 109-148, to replenish some

commodity stocks used for hurricane-relief purposes, no significant action was taken for

hurricane relief or to pay for commodity distribution costs. This is because funding and federally

provided food commodities were generally available without a need for a large appropriation.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assists private land owners with conserving

soil, water, and other natural resources. Following natural disasters, NRCS works with FEMA,

state and federal agencies, and local units of government to conduct post-disaster cleanup and

restoration projects. NRCS administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program,33

which assists landowners and operators in implementing emergency recovery measures for

slowing runoff and preventing erosion to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by

a natural disaster that causes a sudden impairment of a watershed. In the wake of 2005 and 2008

hurricane events, NRCS staff also assessed the demand and requirements for the disposal of

animal carcasses, through authority delegated by FEMA. As of November 29, 2012, NRCS had

obligated approximately $300 million for disaster relief stemming from these hurricanes. State

EWP data for the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes are provided in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Disaster Relief Funding Through the Emergency Watershed Protection

Program


Hurricane Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Tennessee Texas Total

Katrina $21,300 $7,200 $44,900 $114,200 $400 — $188,000

Rita — — $43,800 $2,400 — $12,700 $58,900

Wilma — $12,840 — — — — $12,840

Gustav $600 $600 $12,600 $600 — — $14,400

Ike — — $12,000 — — $12,800 $24,800

Total $21,900 $20,640 $113,300 $117,200 $400 $25,500 $298,940

Source: USDA, NRCS, November 29, 2012.

Forest Service34

The Forest Service (FS) administers programs for protecting and managing the natural resources

of the National Forest System (NFS, primarily national forests and national grasslands) and for

assisting states and non-industrial private forestland owners in protecting and managing the

natural resources of non-federal forestlands. Through its State and Private Forestry (SPF)

program, the FS provides financial and technical assistance, typically through state forestry

33 Authorized in §216 of P.L. 81-516 and §403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-334), as amended.

Codified under 16 U.S.C. §2203 and 33 U.S.C. §701b-1. For more information on EWP and other land rehabilitation

programs, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by Megan Stubbs.

34 This section was originally authored by Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural

Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, and was updated by Katie Hoover, Specialist in Natural

Resources Policy.



agencies, to non-federal landowners to restore forests damaged by hurricanes (and other

disasters). The state agencies are authorized to use such funds in numerous ways, such as

assisting landowners to clear damaged trees and to plant new stands on cleared sites. While

emergency and supplemental funding is sometimes enacted for natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes),

the funding often is expended through ongoing, existing programs, and commonly cannot be

distinguished from regular appropriations for these purposes (i.e., protecting and managing NFS

lands and resources and assisting non-federal landowners in protecting and managing their

forests).

Funding for the FS to conduct work after a natural disaster can be categorized generally as

response efforts and recovery efforts. Response tasks are identified through the National

Response Framework (NRF), administered by FEMA, which grants the FS certain responsibilities

(e.g., firefighting) to coordinate during a presidential-declared emergency or major disaster.35 The

FS reports it spent approximately $77 million for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma,

respectively, on response efforts in FS region 8 (state-level data was not available).36 The FS

estimates it spent a total of $2.5 million on response efforts for Hurricane Gustav ($1.4 million in

Alabama, $0.9 million in Louisiana, $0.1 million in Mississippi, and $0.1 million in Texas).37 The

FS reports it spent a total of $2.1 million on response efforts for Hurricane Ike (all funding spent

in Texas).

Although the FS does not have the authority for specific programs to grant recovery assistance to

states, the FS can use its regular program authorities to assist state and private landowners

broadly following a disaster. For example, after a hurricane, the FS may receive supplemental

funding under the state and private forestry (SPF) programs appropriation to conduct recovery

work via a SPF program. Eight existing FS programs were used to assist the states following

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike (see Table 6).38 The FS may also grant funding

for the FSA Emergency Forest Restoration Program.39 FS recovery funding amounts by state for

the 2005 hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, and Wilma) and 2008 hurricanes (Gustav and Ike) are

provided in Table 7.

Table 6. Forest Service Programs Used to Grant Assistance after Hurricanes in 2005

and 2008

Program Purpose Authority

Cooperative Forest Health

Protection Provides federal financial and technical assistance to

states to facilitate their survey and monitoring of

forest health conditions and for the protection of

forests and trees on state and private lands from

insects, disease causing agents, and invasive plants.

16 U.S.C. §2104

Economic Action Program Assists communities and their leaders in improving the

efficiency and marketing of natural resource-based

industries and in diversifying rural community

economic bases.

7 U.S.C. §§6611-6617

35 Additional information provided in the FEMA section of this report. Region 8 encompasses 13 states including the

six states identified for this request.

36 Email from the Forest Service, December 10, 2012.

37 Email from the Forest Service, December 10, 2012.

38 The FS reports that no funds were provided to Tennessee for any of the hurricanes.

39 Additional information provided in the FSA section of this chapter.



Program Purpose Authority

Emergency Forestry

Conservation Reserve Program

(temporary)

Provides assistance to nonindustrial private forest

landowners who experienced a loss of 35% or more

in merchantable timber from the 2005 hurricanes

(Hurricane Katrina et al.).

P.L. 109-148 Section

107

Forest Stewardship Improves timber production and environmental

protection on nonfederal forest lands.

16 U.S.C. §2103a

Hazard Fuel Mitigation Assists communities in reducing threats from

wildfires.

16 U.S.C. §2106

State Fire Assistance Provides technical and financial assistance to state

cooperators. 16 U.S.C. §2106

Urban and Community

Forestry Expands knowledge and awareness of the value of

urban trees and encourages the maintenance and

expansion of urban tree cover.

16 U.S.C. §2105

Volunteer Fire Assistance Provides federal financial, technical, and other

assistance to state foresters and other appropriate

officials to organize, train, and equip fire departments

in rural areas and rural communities to prevent and

suppress fires.

16 U.S.C. §2106

Source: Compiled by CRS.

Table 7. Forest Service 2005 and 2008 Hurricane Recovery Funding


Hurricane

Year State Program FS Obligations

2005 Alabama Forest Stewardship $474

2005 Alabama Cooperative Forest Health Protection $90

2005 Alabama Economic Action/Rural Development $45

2005 Alabama State Fire Assistance $369

2005 Alabama Urban and Community Forestry $255

2005 Alabama Volunteer Fire Assistance $50

Totals $1,282

2005 Florida Urban and Community Forestry $615

2005 Louisiana Urban and Community Forestry/ State Fire

Assistance/ Forest Stewardship/ Cooperative

Forest Health Protectiona

$7,971

2005 Louisiana Volunteer Fire Assistance $517

Totals $8,489

2005 Mississippi Economic Action/Rural Development $160



Hurricane

Year State Program FS Obligations

2005 Mississippi Urban and Community Forestry/ State Fire



$11,519

2005 Mississippi Volunteer Fire Assistance $553

Totals $12,232

2005 Texas Economic Action/Rural Development $83

2005 Texas Urban and Community Forestry/ State Fire



$4,679

Totals $4,763

2008 Texas State Fire Assistance $4,089

2008 Texas Urban and Community Forestry (Carryover) $50

Totals $4,139

Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service, November 30, 2012, and confirmed on October 24, 2017.

Note: Numbers have been rounded.

a. Forest Service did not provide information on how these funds were allocated between the specified

programs.

Rural Housing Service

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) provides loan and grant assistance for single-family and multi-

family housing. RHS also administers the Community Facilities loan and grant program to

provide assistance to communities for health facilities, fire and police stations, and other essential

community facilities. Following the hurricanes, RHS provided housing relief to residents of the

affected areas through payment moratoriums of six months, a three-month moratorium on

initiating foreclosures under the single family guaranteed homeownership loans, loan forgiveness,

loan reamortization, and refinancing. In addition, RHS provided temporary rental assistance to

displaced family farm labor housing tenants. Assistance was provided for single-family

homeowners (e.g., Section 502 loans), multi-family housing owners (e.g., Section 504 loans), and

rental housing assistance (Section 521). Under P.L. 109-234, total budget authority for RHS

programs for the 2005 hurricanes was $128 million.

The Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-329)

provided funding for activities under the Rural Development Mission Area for relief and recovery

from natural disasters (including hurricanes) during 2008. The act specifically provided $38

million for activities of the Rural Housing Service for areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and

Rita.

Rural Utilities Service

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is responsible for administering electric, telecommunications,

and water assistance programs that help finance the infrastructure necessary to improve the

quality of life and promote economic development in rural areas. Hurricane relief included grants



for rebuilding, repairing, or otherwise improving water and waste disposal systems in designated

disaster areas. Increased technical assistance under the Circuit Rider program was also provided

to rural water districts. With the approval of lenders, RUS also suspended preauthorized debit

payments for water and waste disposal loan guarantees for six months. Under permanent

authority of P.L. 92-419, total budget authority for RUS programs for the 2005 hurricanes was

$53 million.

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration40

The federal government may provide disaster relief to the fishing industry when there is a

commercial fishery failure. A commercial fishery failure occurs when fishermen endure hardships

resulting from fish population declines or other disruptions to the fishery. Two statutes, the

Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. §4107) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1864a and §1864), provide the authority and

requirements for fishery disaster assistance. Under both statutes, a request for a fishery disaster

determination is generally made by the governor of a state, or by a fishing community, although

the Secretary of Commerce may also initiate a review at his or her own discretion. If the

Secretary determines that a fishery disaster has occurred, Congress may appropriate funds for

disaster assistance, which are administered by the Secretary. Funding is usually distributed as

grants to states or regional marine fisheries commissions by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce.

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated almost $260 million of hurricane disaster relief to the Gulf

of Mexico fishing industry (see Table 8). Of this total, $213 million was appropriated for

damages and disruptions caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (P.L. 109-234 and P.L. 110-28).

Assistance provided for the direct needs of fishermen and related businesses, and supported

related fisheries programs such as oyster bed and fishery habitat restoration, cooperative research,

product marketing, fishing gear studies, and seafood testing. Many of these activities such as

habitat restoration are ongoing management priorities for these fisheries. For damage caused by

Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, $47 million was appropriated to restore damaged oyster reefs, remove

storm debris, and rebuild fishing infrastructure in Texas and Louisiana (P.L. 110-329). In addition,

$85 million was provided to NOAA for scanning, mapping, and removing marine debris;

repairing and reconstructing the NOAA Science Center; procuring a replacement emergency

response aircraft and sensor package; and other activities (P.L. 109-234 and P.L. 110-28).

Table 8. Disaster Relief Funding for Commercial Fisheries

(Obligations as of October 2017; Dollars in Thousands)

Commercial Fishery

Disaster Assistance Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Total $44,633 $6,233 $134,190 $62,042 $11,375 $258,473

Source: NOAA Budget Office, personal communication, November 1, 2017. Gulf States Marine Fisheries

Commission, Emergency Disaster Recovery Program, available at http://www.gsmfc.org/fdrp.php.

40 This section was authored by Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and

Industry Division.



Notes: According to NOAA, all funds have been expended except for approximately $79,000. The total does

not add to $260 million because $1,527 thousand was allocated for program administration. The table does not

include funding for NOAA programs.

Economic Development Administration Economic Adjustment Assistance

Program41

The Economic Development Administration (EDA) was created with the passage of the Public

Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA), P.L. 89-136, (42 U.S.C. §3121, et. al)

to provide assistance to communities experiencing long-term economic distress or sudden

economic dislocation. Among the programs administered by EDA is the Economic Adjustment

Assistance (EAA) program. The PWEDA (42 U.S.C. §3149(c)(2)) authorizes EDA to provide

EAA funds for:

disasters or emergencies, in areas with respect to which a major disaster or emergency has

been declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

for post-disaster economic recovery.42

In addition to funding disaster-recovery efforts using Emergency Assistance Act (EAA) funds

available under its regular appropriation, 42 U.S.C. §3233 authorizes the appropriation of such

sums as are necessary to fund EAA disaster recovery activities authorized under 42 U.S.C.

§3149(c)(2). Funds appropriated under 42 U.S.C. §3233 may be used to cover up to 100% of the

cost of a project or activity authorized under 42 U.S.C. §3149(c)(2). Funds appropriated under a

regular appropriations act may be used to cover only 50% of the cost of disaster recovery

activities. However, the authorizing statute also grants EDA the authority to increase the federal

share of a project’s cost to 100%.

Disaster Assistance Grants

Presidentially declared disasters or emergencies are one of five specific qualifying events eligible

for EAA funding assistance.43 EAA grants are competitively awarded and may be used to help

finance public facilities; public services (including job training and counseling) business

development (including funding a revolving loan fund (RLF); planning; and technical assistance

that support the creation or retention of private sector jobs. Regions submitting an application for

EAA disaster assistance must demonstrate a clear connection between the proposed project and

disaster recovery efforts. EAA disaster grants can cover 100% of a project’s cost.

In order to qualify for assistance, the Secretary of Commerce must find that a proposed project or

activity will help the area respond to a severe increase in unemployment, or economic adjustment

problems resulting from severe changes in economic conditions. EAA regulations also require an

area seeking such assistance to prepare or have in place a Comprehensive Economic

Development Strategy (CEDS) outlining the nature and level of economic distress in the region,

and proposed activities that could be undertaken to support private-sector job creation or retention

efforts in the area.

41 This section was authored by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy, Government

and Finance Division.

42 Also cited as §209(c)(2) of P.L. 89-136.

43 Other qualifying events eligible for EAA assistance, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. §3149, include communities whose

economies have been injured by military-related reductions including base closures or realignments, defense contractor

reductions in force, or Department of Energy defense related funding reduction; international trade; fishery failures; or

the loss of manufacturing jobs.



Funding Narrative

Congress did not provide EAA supplemental appropriations for disaster recovery activities related

to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. However, EDA allocated $24.2 million from its regular

appropriations in response to the hurricanes of 2005. In response to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike

and other disasters occurring in 2008, Congress appropriated $400 million in EAA disaster

supplemental funding when it approved P.L. 110-329. It also appropriated an additional $100

million in supplemental EAA disaster assistance without limiting it to disasters occurring in a

specific year when it passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, P.L. 110-252.

Of the $500 million appropriated for EAA disaster grants in 2008, EDA allocated, based on its

2010 annual report to Congress, the latest data available, a total of $63.8 million to 33 recipients

in five of the six states identified in this report.

Department of Defense (Civil)44

Army Corps of Engineers

Civil Works Program

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is a unique federal agency in the Department of

Defense, with military and civilian responsibilities. Under its civil works program, the Corps

plans, builds, operates, and maintains a wide range of water resources facilities, including

hurricane protection and flood damage reduction projects, and performs emergency actions for

flood and coastal emergencies.

Table 9 shows, for each Gulf Coast state, the direct appropriations that the Corps received for its

water resources work related to the five hurricanes. According to data the Corps provided to CRS,

of the total $15.6 billion appropriated, more than $11.2 billion has been obligated.

Table 9. Disaster Relief Funding Appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers


Army Corps of Engineers Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Civil Works Appropriations $3,000 $57,000 $14,768,000 $558,000 $207,000 $15,593,000

Source: CRS correspondence with Army Corps of Engineers Budget Office, 2012.

Department of Defense (Military) 45

Military Personnel

The Military Personnel accounts fund military pay and allowances, permanent change of station

travel, retirement and health benefit accruals, uniforms, and other personnel costs. For the

44 This section was authored by Charles Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry

Division and updated by Nicole Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry

Division.

45 This section was authored by Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and

Trade Division, with assistance from former CRS specialists Amy Belasco and Dan Else. Program summary

information was taken from Department of Defense budget documents and H.Rept. 109-359, Conference Report to



hurricane response efforts, funds have been used primarily to pay per diem to DOD personnel

evacuated from affected areas, for the pay and allowances of activated Guard and Reserve

personnel supporting the hurricane relief effort, and for increased housing allowances to

compensate for housing rate increases in hurricane-affected areas. Military personnel funds

obligated by the Alabama, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi National Guard are detailed

in Table 10. Data on the obligation of other Military Personnel funds, by state, were not readily

available.

Operations and Maintenance

The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts fund training and operation costs, pay for

civilians, maintenance service contracts, fuel, supplies, repair parts, and other expenses. For the

hurricane response efforts, funds have been used primarily to repair facilities, establish alternate

operating sites for displaced military organizations, repair and replace equipment, remove debris,

clean up hazardous waste, repair utilities, evacuate DOD personnel from affected areas, and

support the operations of activated Army and Air National Guard units. O&M funds obligated by

the Alabama, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi National Guard are detailed in Table 10.

Data on the obligation of other O&M funds, by state, were not readily available.

Procurement

The Procurement accounts generally fund the acquisition of aircraft, ships, combat

vehicles, satellites, weapons, ammunition, and other capital equipment. For the hurricane

response efforts, $2.85 billion was appropriated, of which $2.5 billion was used primarily to pay

for extraordinary shipbuilding and ship repair costs, including not only damage to ships under

construction and replacement of equipment and materials, but also additional overhead and labor

costs resulting from schedule delays due to the hurricane damage to shipyards, primarily

Avondale in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Ingalls in Pascagoula, Mississippi.46 These funds also

included $140 million to improve the infrastructure at damaged shipyards.47 Budget authority,

obligations, and outlays for procurement, allocated by state for Alabama, Florida, Texas,

Louisiana, and Mississippi are detailed in Table 10.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

The Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) accounts fund modernization efforts

by way of basic and applied research, creation of technology-demonstration devices, developing

prototypes, and other related costs. For the hurricane response efforts, funds have been used to

replace damaged test equipment and repair damaged test facilities. Data allocating RDT&E funds

by state were not readily available.

Military Construction (MILCON) and Family Housing

The MILCON accounts fund the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of

temporary or permanent public works, military installations, facilities, and real property. The

Accompany H.R. 2863, Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the

Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006.

46 H.Rept. 109-359, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2863, Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006, p. 496.

47 §2203, P.L. 109-234, provided that $140 million was available for infrastructure improvements to Gulf Coast

shipyards damaged in 2005.



Family Housing Construction accounts fund costs associated with the construction of military

family housing (including acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and

alteration), while the Family Housing O&M accounts fund expenses such as debt payment,

leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance premiums on military

family housing. For the hurricane response efforts, $1.4 billion was appropriated to finance the

planning, design, and construction of military facilities and infrastructure that were damaged or

destroyed by hurricane winds and water. Of this, $918 million was dedicated to military

operations and training facilities, while an additional $460 million was appropriated for family

housing construction and family housing O&M to rebuild destroyed, damaged, or new housing

units and a housing office. Budget authority for MILCON and family housing construction

allocated to the states of Alabama, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi is detailed in Table

10. Of the $1.4 billion appropriated, $1.2 billion could be allocated to the five specified states,

while $167 million was devoted to planning and design activities not associated with specific

locations.

Management Funds

This category includes the Defense Working Capital Fund, the National Defense Sealift Fund, and

a commissary fund. For the hurricane response efforts, these funds have been used primarily to

rebuild and repair damaged commissaries, replace commissary inventories, and cover

transportation and contingency costs of the Defense Logistics Agency. Data allocating these funds

by state were not readily available.

Other Department of Defense Programs

This category includes the Defense Health Program (DHP) and the Office of the Inspector

General (OIG). The DHP title funds medical and dental care to current and retired members of the

Armed Forces, their family members, and other eligible beneficiaries. For the hurricane response

efforts, these funds have been used primarily to pay for costs associated with displaced

beneficiaries seeking care from private-sector providers rather than at military health care

facilities, to pay the health care costs of activated Guard and Reserve personnel, and to replace

medical supplies and equipment. Data allocating DHP funds by state were not readily available.

Of the $589,000 appropriated for the OIG, $263,000 was provided to replace and repair damaged

equipment in the Inspector General’s office in Slidell, LA, and to cover relocation costs.

Table 10. Disaster Relief Funding by the Department of Defense (Military)


Name of Program Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Military Personnel

(National Guard only)a

$7,192 $4,091 $126,982 $27,123 $15,974 $181,361

Operations and

Maintenance (National

Guard only)b

$1,407 $1,759 $89,538 $112,721 $12,440 $217,866

Procurement: Budget

Authorityc

$60,048 — $770,647 $1,698,581 — $2,529,277

Obligations $60,007 — $770,546 $1,698,193 — $2,528,746

Outlays $54,996 — $697,584 $1,567,619 — $2,320,199



Name of Program Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Military Construction

and Family Housingd

— — $371 $840 — $1,378

Sources: The National Guard Personnel and O&M figures are CRS calculations based on data provided by the

National Guard Bureau. Procurement figures were provided by the Navy. Military Construction and Family

Housing figures are CRS calculations based on data contained in the conference committee reports that

accompanied the relevant appropriations acts.

Notes:

a. National Guard figures are expressed in terms of obligations.

b. The obligated funds for National Guard personnel and O&M were for hurricane response purposes in the

specified states from 2005-2012, but they may not correspond in all cases to the emergency funds

appropriated by Congress for hurricane relief purposes specified in Table 1 of this report. An

indeterminate amount of the funding came from regular appropriated funds.

c. Procurement figures are expressed in terms of budget authority, obligations, and outlays; budget authority is

nearly identical to obligations.

d. Military construction figures are expressed in terms of budget authority; $167 million is not geographically

specific.

e. Table 11 does not include funding for Management Funds, DHP, or the OIG.

Department of Education48

Elementary and Secondary Education

Program Authorities49

Following the Gulf Coast hurricanes, funding to support elementary and secondary schools

affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita was provided through three public laws: P.L.

109-148 ($1.4 billion), P.L. 109-234 ($235 million), and P.L. 110-28 ($30 million).

P.L. 109-148 created two new programs: (1) Immediate Aid to Restart School

Operations ($750 million) and (2) Temporary Impact Aid for Displaced Students

($645 million), which were specifically designed to address needs resulting from

the hurricanes.50 It also added $5 million to the McKinney-Vento Homeless

Assistance Act to serve homeless children and youth who had been displaced by

the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

P.L. 109-234 provided additional funding of $235 million for the Temporary

Impact Aid for Displaced Students enacted under P.L. 109-148.

48 This section was authored by Rebecca Skinner, Specialist in Education Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.

49 While not provided through education-related disaster relief legislation, Louisiana also received $20.9 million

through the Charter School Program authorized under Title V-B-1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

specifically to help reopen charter schools damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, help create 10 new charter

schools, and expand existing charter schools to accommodate displaced students. (For more information, see U.S.

Department of Education, “Louisiana Awarded $20.9 Million No Child Left Behind Grant to Assist Damaged Charter

Schools, Create New Charter Schools,” press release, September 30, 2005, available at http://www2.ed.gov/news/

pressreleases/2005/09/09302005.html).

50 In addition to funding, P.L. 109-148 also provided general waiver authority for the Secretary of Education related to

maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements; the use of federal funds to supplement, not supplant non-federal funds; and

matching contributions for programs administered by the Secretary. It also modified hold harmless provisions for the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I-A Grants to Local Educational Agencies program and

modified highly qualified teacher provisions contained in ESEA Title I-A.



P.L. 110-28 appropriated $30 million for elementary and secondary schools

affected by the hurricanes through the Hurricane Educator Assistance program to

assist in recruiting, retaining, and compensating staff in those schools.

Congress then appropriated an additional $15 million through P.L. 110-329 to provide support to

local educational agencies (LEAs) whose enrollment of homeless students increased as a result of

hurricanes, including Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, floods, or other natural disasters during 2008.

Congress subsequently appropriated $12 million through P.L. 111-117 for the Gulf Coast

Recovery Initiative to improve education in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Gustav.

A brief description of each of these programs and the amount of funding each received is

presented below. Table 11 details how much funding various states received under each of the

programs.

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

The Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations provided support for LEAs and non-public

schools in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas to restart school operations, reopen

schools, and re-enroll students. P.L. 109-148 provided $750 million for this program. This

program is no longer authorized.

Temporary Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students

The Temporary Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students program provided federal funding

to assist schools in enrolling students who had been displaced by the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

Funds were made available to LEAs and schools based on the number of displaced students that

enrolled, irrespective of whether the school in which parents chose to enroll their child was a

public or non-public school. P.L. 109-148 appropriated $645 million for this program.

Subsequently, P.L. 109-234 appropriated an additional $235 million for this program, bringing the

total program appropriation to $880 million.51 Portions of the funds appropriated were provided

to 49 states52 and the District of Columbia based on the number of displaced students each

enrolled. Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi received the largest proportion of funds. This program

is no longer authorized.

Hurricane Educator Assistance Program

The Hurricane Educator Assistance Program made federal funding available to Louisiana,

Mississippi, and Alabama to use for recruiting, retaining, and compensating school staff who

committed to work for at least three years in public elementary and secondary schools affected by

Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. States were required to apply to receive funds, and the funds were

allocated based on the number of public elementary and secondary schools that were closed for

19 days or more from August 29, 2005, through December 31, 2005. P.L. 110-28 provided $30

million for these purposes to Louisiana and Mississippi only. This program is no longer

authorized.

51 Of the total appropriation for Temporary Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students, only $878 million was

distributed, as the remaining funds were not needed by states under this program.

52 Hawaii did not receive any funds through this program.



McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act provides funding to states to ensure that homeless

children and youth are provided equal access to a free, appropriate public education in the same

manner as provided other children and youth.53 P.L. 109-148 appropriated $5 million for this

program for LEAs serving homeless children and youth who had been displaced by Hurricane

Katrina or Hurricane Rita. Eight states received funding under this program, with the largest

grants provided to Texas and Louisiana.54 While the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

continues to provide funding related to the education of homeless students, the provisions enacted

specifically in response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes are no longer authorized.

Homeless Education Disaster Assistance55

P.L. 110-329 provided $15 million to LEAs whose enrollment of homeless students increased as a

result of hurricanes, floods, or other natural disasters that occurred during 2008 and for which the

President declared a major disaster under Title IV of the Stafford Act. ED was required to

distribute the funds through the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act based on

demonstrated need. These funds provided assistance to LEAs in Gulf Coast states affected by

Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, as well as LEAs affected by natural disasters in other parts of the

nation, such as flooding in the Midwest. The majority of the funds were provided to LEAs in

Louisiana and Texas.56 This program is no longer authorized.

Gulf Coast Recovery Initiative

P.L. 111-117 provided $12 million for competitive awards to LEAs located in counties in

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas that were designated by FEMA as counties eligible for

individual assistance as a result of damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Gustav. The

funds had to be used to improve education in areas affected by these hurricanes and had to be

used for activities such as replacing instructional materials and equipment; paying teacher

incentives; modernizing, renovating, or repairing school buildings; supporting charter school

expansion; and supporting extended learning time activities. The majority of the funds were

provided to LEAs in Louisiana. This program is no longer authorized.

Higher Education

Program Authorities

Appropriations to support institutions of higher education (IHEs) following the Gulf Coast

hurricanes of 2005 were provided through P.L. 109-148 ($200 million), P.L. 109-234 ($50

53 42 U.S.C. §11433.

54 The eight states that received funds included Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Tennessee, and Texas.

55 None of these funds were provided in response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.

56 While data were not available on the specific disasters experienced by the LEAs that received funding, data were

available on the specific types of disasters for which institutions of higher education (IHEs) received funds under the

Higher Education Disaster Relief program (P.L. 110-329), which also provided aid in response to natural disasters that

occurred in 2008. According to these data, all IHEs in Louisiana that received funds were affected by Hurricane Gustav

or Ike. Most IHEs in Texas that received funds were affected by Hurricane Ike. A few IHEs in Texas were affected by

Hurricane Dolly, accounting for a relatively small portion of the funds allocated to IHEs in Texas. IHEs in Florida that

received funding were affected by Tropical Storm Fay. LEAs in Iowa and Illinois received the remaining funds

available to LEAs.



million), and P.L. 110-28 ($30 million). P.L. 110-329 subsequently provided an additional $15

million for IHEs in areas affected by hurricanes, including Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, floods, or

other natural disasters in 2008. Table 11 details the amount of funding allocated to various states

under these provisions.

Hurricane Education Recovery

Of the $200 million provided under P.L. 109-148 for higher education, $95 million was

specifically appropriated for the Louisiana Board of Regents, and $95 million was specifically

appropriated for the Mississippi Institutes of Higher Learning for hurricane education recovery

from the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Subsequently, P.L. 109-234 and P.L. 110-28 provided

additional funds for hurricane education recovery under the Fund for the Improvement of

Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), authorized by Title VII of the Higher Education Act, to assist

IHEs adversely affected by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Under both laws, funds were

provided to help defray the expenses incurred by IHEs that were forced to close, relocate, or

reduce their activities due to hurricane damage. Under P.L. 110-28, IHEs also were permitted to

use these funds to make grants to students enrolled at these institutions on or after July 1, 2006. A

total of $80 million was provided for IHEs affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita under

the FIPSE for hurricane education recovery. The majority of funds appropriated for hurricane

education recovery were provided to Mississippi and Louisiana. These activities are no longer

authorized.

Funds to Assist IHEs Enrolling Displaced Students

The remaining $10 million appropriated under P.L. 109-148 for higher education disaster relief

was provided to assist IHEs with unanticipated costs associated with the enrollment of students

displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. Overall, 99 IHEs in 24 states and the

District of Columbia received funds related to the enrollment of displaced higher education

students.57 Louisiana and Texas received the largest state grants. This program is no longer

authorized.

Higher Education Disaster Relief58

P.L. 110-329 provided an additional $15 million for IHEs that were located in an area affected by

hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters that occurred during 2008 and for which the

President declared a major disaster under Title IV of the Stafford Act.59 Funds provided through

the Higher Education Disaster Relief program could be used to defray the expenses incurred by

IHEs that were forced to close or relocate or whose operations were adversely affected by the

natural disaster, and to provide grants to students who attended such IHEs for academic years

beginning on or after July 1, 2008. The majority of these funds were provided to Louisiana and

Texas for hurricane-related education disaster assistance related to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.60

This program is no longer authorized.

57 The 24 states in which IHEs received funds included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,

Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

58 None of these funds were provided in response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.

59 Total obligations under this program were $15,028,360.

60 IHEs in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky also received funds under this program.



Funding Summary

Following the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005, Congress appropriated $1.943 billion for ED to

provide support to LEAs, schools, and IHEs in the Gulf Coast region and nationwide that were

affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.61 Subsequently, FY2009 supplemental

appropriations provided an additional $30 million for education-related disaster relief for LEAs

and IHEs affected by natural disasters during the 2008 calendar year. Most recently, FY2010

appropriations provided an additional $12 million for LEAs located in specific areas affected by

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Gustav. Of the $1.985 billion provided for education-related disaster

relief and administered by ED since the Gulf Coast hurricanes, nearly all of these funds ($1.826

billion, 92%) were provided to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas in

response to the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes. Table 11 details how much of this funding was

allocated to each of these states for each of the programs discussed in this section.

Table 11. Disaster Relief Funding Administered by the Department of Education

Provided in Response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike

(Dollars in Thousands (cumulative obligations))

Department of Education Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Tennessee Texas Total

Elementary and secondary education

Immediate Aid to Restart

School Operations

$3,750 — $445,604 $222,493 — $78,153 $750,000

Emergency Impact Aid for

Displaced Studentsa

$36,605 $27,214 $291,717 $100,787 $19,001 $250,890 $726,213

McKinney-Vento Homeless

Education Assistance Program

$247 $196 $1,564 $687 $122 $1,687 $4,504

Hurricane Educator Assistance

Program

— — $22,593 $7,407 — — $30,000

Homeless Education Disaster

Assistanceb

— — $1,171 — — $12,256 $13,427

Gulf Coast Recovery Initiative — — $8,624 $2,638 — $739 $12,000

Subtotal for elementary and

secondary education

$40,602 $27,410 $771,273 $334,012 $19,123 $343,724 $1,536,144

Higher education

Hurricane Education Recovery $301 $1,507 $145,663 $117,878 — $4,651 $270,000

Funds to Assist Institutions of

Higher Education Enrolling

Displaced Students

$357 $34 $5,748 $327 $95 $1,750 $8,312

Higher Education Disaster

Relief Programc

— — $3,524 — — $8,067 $11,591

Subtotal postsecondary

education

$658 $1,541 $154,935 $118,206 $95 $14,468 $289,903

Total $41,261 $28,952 $926,208 $452,217 $19,218 $358,192 $1,826,046

61 For a more detailed discussion of federal education-related hurricane relief, see CRS Report R42881, Education-

Related Regulatory Flexibilities, Waivers, and Federal Assistance in Response to Disasters and National Emergencies,

by Boris Granovskiy and Alexandra Hegji.



Source: Table prepared by CRS, December 11, 2012, based on published and unpublished data available from

the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

a. Under the Emergency Impact Aid program, $1.9 million of the $880 million appropriated was not allocated

to states, as the funds were not needed. Thus, the total appropriated amount is higher than the amount

allocated and shown on the table.

b. None of these funds were provided in response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. While data were not

available from ED on the specific disasters experienced by the LEAs that received funding, data were

available on the specific types of disasters for which IHEs received funds under P.L. 110-329. According to

these data, all IHEs in Louisiana that received funds were affected by Hurricane Gustav or Ike. Most IHEs in

Texas that received funds were affected by Hurricane Ike. A few IHEs in Texas were affected by Hurricane

Dolly, accounting for a relatively small portion of the funds allocated to IHEs in Texas. IHEs in Florida that

received funding were affected by Tropical Storm Fay. Thus, all funds provided to LEAs in Louisiana and

Texas were included in the table, while funds provided to LEAs in Florida were not included.

c. Funds obligated to this account were in response to the 2008 hurricanes.

Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families62

Head Start

The federal Head Start program, authorized at 42 U.S.C. §9801 et seq., provides comprehensive

early childhood development services to low-income children.63 The program seeks to promote

school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the

provision of educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services. Federal Head Start funds

are provided directly to local grantees (e.g., public and private nonprofit and for-profit agencies)

rather than through states. Most children served in Head Start programs are three- and four-year

olds, but services are authorized for children from birth through compulsory school age.

In December 2005, Congress appropriated $90 million in supplemental Head Start funds for the

costs of serving displaced children and the renovation of Head Start facilities affected by the Gulf

Coast hurricanes of 2005.64 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reported awarding approximately $74 million of

the total appropriation based on grantee requests; the remaining funds ($16 million) reverted to

the U.S. Treasury Department.65 The majority of the funds awarded to grantees ($72.5 million, or

98% of the $74 million) went to Head Start programs in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,

Mississippi, and Texas (see Table 12).

Social Services Block Grant

The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), permanently authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1397 et seq., is

a flexible source of funds that states use to support a wide variety of social services activities,

62 This section was authored by Karen Lynch, Specialist in Social Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.

63 For additional information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Funding, by Karen E. Lynch.

64 See Division B of P.L. 109-148. The appropriations language specified that costs of renovations may be covered “to

the extent reimbursements from FEMA and insurance companies do not fully cover such costs.”

65 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “FY2008 Justification of

Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” February 2007, p. 91.



ranging from child care to special services for the disabled.66 States have broad discretion over

the use of SSBG funds, which are typically allocated to states according to a population-based

formula.

In December 2005, Congress appropriated $550 million in supplemental SSBG funds for

necessary expenses related to the consequences of the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.67 ACF

distributed these funds based on the number of FEMA registrants from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,

and Wilma, as well as the percent of individuals in poverty in each state. Funds were allocated to

all states that took in evacuees, not just the states that were directly affected. The appropriations

language expanded potential services for which these funds could be used to include “health

services (including mental health services) and for repair, renovation, and construction of health

facilities (including mental health facilities).”

In September 2008, Congress appropriated $600 million for necessary expenses resulting from

major disasters occurring in 2008, including hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters, as

well as expenses resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.68 ACF reserved a portion of these

funds for states affected by major disasters of 2008 and a portion for states facing ongoing needs

as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.69 ACF distributed both sets of funds based on each

state’s share of FEMA registrants, as well as the overall population for each state. Like the

previous supplemental, the 2008 supplemental appropriation again expanded potential services

for which SSBG funds could be used, this time to include “health services (including mental

health services) and for repair, renovation, and construction of health facilities (including mental

health facilities), child care centers, and other social services facilities.”

Combined, these two supplemental appropriations provided $1.150 billion for the SSBG.

According to ACF, the bulk of these funds—$944 million, or 82% of the $1.150 billion—were

allocated to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (see Table 12).70

Typically, SSBG funds are subject to a two-year expenditure period—meaning that funds must be

spent by the end of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which they were allotted to

states.71 However, most states had not spent all of their funds from either supplemental within the

standard two-year period and, in both cases, Congress passed legislation extending the spending

deadline for these supplemental funds.72 According to data from ACF, states had spent about $521

million (95%) of the 2005 $550 million supplemental before the extended deadline of September

66 For additional information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding, by

Karen E. Lynch.

67 See Division B of P.L. 109-148.

68 See Division B of P.L. 110-329.

69 For the purpose of allocating these funds, ACF counted major disasters occurring between January and September of

2008 for which FEMA Individual Assistance was authorized, plus Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

70 Of the $944 million, $519 million came from funds appropriated in P.L. 109-148, while $425 million came from

funds appropriated in P.L. 110-329. Notably, allocations from the latter appropriation were developed based on needs

resulting from a broader array of storms. In addition to accounting for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the

formula for allocating these funds also took into account other major disasters of CY2008 that qualified for the FEMA

Individual Assistance program, such as Tropical Storm Fay in Florida, Hurricane Dolly in Texas, and various other

severe storms, tornados, and floods. For state-by-state allocation and expenditure data for these supplemental

appropriations, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding, by Karen E. Lynch.

71 See §2002(c) of Title XX-A of the Social Security Act.

72 The expenditure deadline for the $550 million in supplemental SSBG funds appropriated in P.L. 109-148 was

initially September 30, 2007. This deadline was extended, by P.L. 110-28, through September 30, 2009. The

expenditure deadline for the $600 million in supplemental SSBG funds appropriated in P.L. 110-329 was initially

September 30, 2010. This deadline was extended, by P.L. 111-285, through September 30, 2011.



30, 2009. ACF data indicate that states had spent about $522 million (87%) of the 2008 $600

million supplemental before the extended expenditure deadline of September 30, 2011. Unspent

funds were to revert to the U.S. Treasury.

According to the FY2009 SSBG annual report, states spent supplemental funds on 28 of the 29

SSBG service categories defined in federal regulation,73 including education and training,

counseling services, and health-related services.74 The FY2009 report indicated that most

supplemental funds were spent in the “other services” category, including expenditures for certain

construction and renovation costs, as well as costs related to certain health and mental health

services. Notably, the FY2009 annual report only includes expenditures from the December 2005

supplemental appropriation.

Table 12. Disaster Relief Funding for Programs at the HHS Administration for

Children and Families

(Cumulative Allocations as of July 2010; Dollars in Thousands)

HHS Administration for

Children and Families Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Head Start $1,390 $114 $44,995 $22,212 $3,796 $72,507

Social Services Block Grant

(SSBG) $40,945 $89,194 $350,639 $156,535 $306,805 $944,117

Total $42,335 $89,308 $395,634 $178,747 $310,601 $1,016,624

Source: CRS interpretation based on data from the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Head

Start data are from ACF’s FY2008 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees. SSBG data are for

combined supplemental allocations, based on data available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/

supplemental (for the 2005 supplemental) and http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/grant-awards (for

the 2008 supplemental).

Notes: Totals shown for the SSBG reflect a combination of supplemental funds appropriated by P.L. 109-148 in

December 2005 and P.L. 110-329 in September 2008. Notably, the 2008 SSBG supplemental was appropriated

for expenses resulting from major disasters occurring during 2008, as well as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Thus,

the allocations shown in this table include some funds that were allocated for disasters other than Hurricanes

Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike (e.g., Tropical Storm Fay and Hurricane Dolly).

Public Health and Medical Assistance75

DRF-Funded Mission Assignments

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the coordinating agency for Emergency

Support Function 8 (ESF #8), Public Health and Medical Services, under the National Response

Framework.76 The Stafford Act authorizes reimbursements to HHS for many of its emergency or

major disaster response activities, including (among others): deployment of operational assets

(medical surge and mortuary teams, portable field hospitals, and the Strategic National Stockpile

73 45 C.F.R. §96.74(b).

74 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Social Services Block

Grant Program Annual Report 2009, Chapter 5,” available at http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/

2009/index.html.

75 This section was authored by Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology, Domestic Social Policy

Division.

76 For more information on the National Response Framework see https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/

documents/117791.



of drugs and medical supplies); disease surveillance; food and water safety activities; and

workforce assistance to health departments. Reimbursements to HHS for mission assignments are

presented in Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19.

DRF-Funded Crisis Counseling Program (CCP)

Pursuant to Section 416 of the Stafford Act, the President may provide assistance for the

establishment of crisis counseling services in areas affected by declared major disasters. CCP, a

program to provide short-term mental health screening, counseling, and referral services in

presidentially declared disasters, is jointly administered by FEMA, the Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in HHS, and affected states. Amounts

provided to each state for the response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes are displayed in Table 13.

Federal Assistance for Health Care

In response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress authorized and appropriated a one-time program of up

to $2.1 billion to cover full federal funding of the state match that would normally have been

required under the Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP) programs, and the

costs of uncompensated care, for eligible individuals from disaster-affected areas. Assistance was

provided both to directly affected states and to certain states that hosted evacuees. Funding was

also authorized “to restore access to health care in impacted communities,” and was provided to

stabilize the primary care workforce in three directly affected states: Alabama, Louisiana, and

Mississippi.77 Outlay amounts are presented in Table 14.78

Appropriations to Existing HHS Accounts

In response to the 2005 hurricanes, Congress provided, in emergency supplemental

appropriations for affected areas, $4 million for communications equipment for community health

centers, and $8 million for mosquito abatement in affected states.79 The amounts obligated from

this emergency supplemental funding are presented in Table 15.

Grants from Existing HHS Accounts

In some cases, funds available in existing HHS accounts were provided for hurricane relief. For

example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Emergency Prescription

Assistance Program provided up to $2 million in individual assistance for affected counties in

Texas following Hurricane Ike. Also, the HHS Office of Minority Health provided $12 million in

77 P.L. 109-171, Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), §6201, 120 Stat. 132-134, February 8, 2006; and P.L. 109-62, Second

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane

Katrina, 2005, 119 Stat. 1991, September 8, 2005. The $2 billion appropriated in the DRA was in addition to $100

million appropriated earlier to the National Disaster Medical System, some of which was also transferred for this

purpose. See GAO, Hurricane Katrina: Allocation and Use of $2 Billion for Medicaid and Other Health Care Needs,

GAO-07-67, February 28, 2007, and GAO, Hurricane Katrina: CMS and HRSA Assistance to Sustain Primary Care

Gains in the Greater New Orleans Area, GAO-10-773R, June 30, 2010.

78 Congress also provided $90 million in grants to states for high-risk pools that provide health insurance to individuals

who are otherwise uninsurable. P.L. 109-171 (DRA), §6202, 120 Stat. 134. Almost all states were eligible and received

awards under this program. Although it was not the primary focus, some states may have used the funds to provide

insurance coverage to hurricane evacuees.

79 P.L. 109-234, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane

Recovery, 2006, 120 Stat. 463, June 15, 2006. A portion of funds for communications equipment was provided to

North Carolina, which deployed a field hospital to the Gulf Coast; funding was used to facilitate that aid.



grants to minority-serving organizations following Hurricane Katrina. Third, SAMHSA

Emergency Response Grants (SERG) provided funds to states for mental health and substance

abuse services following Hurricane Katrina.80 Amounts for SERG grants are presented in Table

12.

Administrative Waivers

The federal government funds a significant portion of the nation’s health care costs, through the

Medicare and Medicaid programs, veterans and Indian health care systems, and other activities.

In response to the major hurricanes, HHS invoked numerous waiver authorities that allowed state,

local, tribal, and private health care providers and facilities affected by the disasters to continue

receiving federal health care services and/or reimbursements under altered conditions, such as the

use of temporary facilities, the use of volunteer providers, and care provided to individuals not

usually eligible.81 Although these waivers did not provide new funds to disaster-affected areas,

they prevented the loss of substantial federal revenues. Several HHS agencies also allowed states

to reprogram federal grant funds, including from most of the grants administered by the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Public Health Emergency Fund

The Secretary of HHS has authority to use a no-year fund82 for public health emergencies.

However, the fund has not had a balance since the 1990s, so it was not available for the response

to the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes.83

Table 13. Disaster Relief Funding for Crisis Counseling, Mental Health, and

Substance Abuse Services

(Allocations as of June 2010; Dollars in Thousands)

Hurricane

Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total by Program

CCP SERG CCP SERG CCP SERG CCP SERG CCP SERG CCP SERG

Katrina $3,019 $100 — — $100,436 $200 $41,101 $150 — $150 $144,556 $600

Rita — — — — $4,484 — — — $2,709 — $7,193 —

Wilma — — $10,401 — — — — — — — $10,401 —

Gustav — — — — $16,476 — — — — — $16,476 —

Ike — — — — — — — — $8,267 — $8,267 —

Total $3,019 $100 $10,401 — $121,396 $200 $41,101 $150 $10,976 $150 $186,893 $600

Source: Information for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma from FEMA, “Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Status

Report,” (FY2010 Report to Congress), June 22, 2010, pp. 11-14; and HHS, “HHS Awards $600,000 in

Emergency Mental Health Grants to Four States Devastated by Hurricane Katrina,” press release, September 13,

80 HHS, “HHS Provides Prescription Drug and Durable Medical Equipment Assistance for Uninsured Texas Victims of

Hurricane Ike,” press release, September 12, 2008; HHS, “HHS Awards Grants to Support Minority Health,” press

release, September 30, 2005; and HHS, “HHS Awards $600,000 in Emergency Mental Health Grants to Four States

Devastated by Hurricane Katrina,” press release, September 13, 2005, available at http://www.hhs.gov/news.

81 These waiver authorities are described at, “Department of Health and Human Services, “1135 Waivers” available at

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/Pages/1135-waivers.aspx.

82 No-year funds are available until they are expended.

83 See “Federal Funding to Support an ESF-8 Response,” in CRS Report RL33579, The Public Health and Medical

Response to Disasters: Federal Authority and Funding, by Sarah A. Lister.



2005, available at http://www.hhs.gov/news/. Information for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike provided by FEMA Office

of External Affairs, July 14, 2010.

Notes: CCP is the Crisis Counseling Program. SERG is SAMHSA Emergency Response Grants. A hyphen

indicates that no funds were provided. Although CCP allocations may have continued since June 2010, FEMA has

not provided incident-specific funding information since that time. The SERG allocations as presented are final.

Table 14. Disaster Relief Funding for Health Care Costs and Infrastructure

(Outlays as of December 31, 2012; Dollars in Thousands)

Source Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas

Health care costs $240,300 $1,800 $741,100 $581,400 $33,100

Primary care stabilization $38,300 - $57,600 $92,800 -

Total $278,600 $1,800 $998,700 $674,200 $33,100

Source: HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, February 26, 2013.

Notes: Authority and appropriations pursuant to the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), Section 6201, limited to the

Hurricane Katrina response. Amounts included $2.0 billion appropriated under DRA, and authority to transfer

up to $100 million previously appropriated to the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS). For health care

costs only, funding was provided to 21 additional states and the District of Columbia, which hosted evacuees.

Table 15. Disaster Relief Funding for Communications Equipment and Mosquito

Abatement

(Obligations as of July 2009; Dollars in Thousands)

Purpose Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Communications

equipment

$667 $667 $667 $667 $663 $3,331

Mosquito abatement $798 - $3,202 $2,871 $1,109 $7,980

Total $1,465 $667 $3,869 $3,538 $1,772 $11,311

Source: HHS: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Office of Legislation; and CDC

Washington Office, July 15, 2009.

Notes: Assistance provided for the response to Hurricane Katrina pursuant to P.L. 109-234. North Carolina

also received a comparable award for communications equipment. On July 15, 2010, the HHS Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources confirmed that the amounts appropriated–$4 million for

communications equipment and $8 million for mosquito abatement–had been fully obligated.

Department of Homeland Security84

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Authority

The Stafford Act authorizes the President to issue major disaster or emergency declarations in

response to incidents in the United States that overwhelm state and local governments.85 Section

403(a)(1) of Stafford authorizes the President to direct federal resources to provide assistance

84 This section was authored by Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst in American National Government, Government and

Finance Division.

85 42 U.S.C. §5121 et seq.



essential to meeting immediate threats to life and property resulting from a major disaster.86

Section 304 of the Stafford Act authorizes the reimbursement of other agencies from funds

appropriated to the DRF for services or supplies furnished under the authority of the Stafford

Act.87

Program Description

The primary mission of FEMA is to “reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation

from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by

leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system

of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation.”88

FEMA provides assistance to states, local governments, tribal nations, individuals and families,

and certain nonprofit organizations through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).89 The more

significant aid programs authorized under the Stafford Act include the Public Assistance Program

(PA);90 and the Individual and Household Program (IHP), which includes Other Needs Assistance

(ONA)91 and Debris Removal,92 the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP),93 and Essential

Assistance.94

P.L. 112-17595 requires the FEMA Administrator to provide a report by the fifth day of each

month on the DRF which includes DRF funding summaries. The DRF report provides funding

information by state for the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes. As shown in Table 16, the DRF report

aggregates funding for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

Table 16. Disaster Relief Funding by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike

(Cumulative Obligations as of February 5, 2013; Dollars in Millions)

Hurricane Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma $1,022 $233 $31,016 $10,058 $1,900 $44,229

Ike $15 - $329 - $4,178 $4,522

Gustav $19 $8 $1,544 $47 - $1,618

Total $1,056 $241 $32,889 $10,105 $6,078 $50,369

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report, February 5, 2013.

86 42 U.S.C. §5170b(a)(1).

87 42 U.S.C. §5147.

88 Federal Emergency Management Agency, “About the Agency,” available at https://www.fema.gov/about-agency.

89 The DRF is the main account used to fund a wide variety of programs, grants, and other forms of emergency and

disaster assistance to states, local governments, certain nonprofit entities, and families and individuals affected by

disasters. In most cases, funding from the DRF is released after the President has issued a declaration pursuant to the

Stafford Act. For further analysis on declaration process, see CRS Report R43784, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration

Process: A Primer, by Bruce R. Lindsay.

90 §406, 42 U.S.C. §5172.

91 §408, 42 U.S.C. §5174.

92 §407, 42 U.S.C. §5173.

93 §404, 42 U.S.C. §5170c.

94 §403, 42 U.S.C. §5170b.

95 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.



FEMA Mission Assignments by Federal Entity

Mission assignments are directives from FEMA (on behalf of the requesting state) to other federal

agencies to perform specific work in disaster operations on a reimbursable basis. The mission

assignment contains information that is used by FEMA management to evaluate requests for

assistance from states, other federal agencies, and internal FEMA organizations.96 Mission

assignments are paid out of the DRF through funds appropriated to FEMA rather than funds

appropriated directly to the respective agency. Table 17 contains a list of mission assignment

funding by entity for Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Rita. Table 18 contains mission assignment

data for Hurricane Gustav and Table 19 contains mission assignment funding for Hurricane Ike.

As shown in Tables 18, 19, and 20, mission assignment funding can be assigned directly to an

agency, directly to an agency’s program/activity, or both.

Table 17. Mission Assignment Funding by Agency: Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and

Rita

(Net Obligations, as of January 1, 2013)

Department/Agency Obligations

Department of Agriculture $2,573,496

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service $55,776

Food and Nutrition Service $10,493

U.S. Forest Service $162,523,398

Department of Commerce $2,171,004

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration $2,503,387

Department of Defense $380,614,318

Army Corps of Engineers—Great Lakes and Ohio River Division $2,522

Army Corps of Engineers—Mississippi Valley Division $3,606,709,470

Army Corps of Engineers—South Atlantic Division $234,037,021

Army Corps of Engineers—South Western Division $208,521,382

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency $1,005,796

Department of Energy $209,373

Department of Health and Human Services $74,004,453

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $15,101,893

Department of Homeland Security

Customs and Border Protection $15,487,544

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center $459,381

Federal Protective Service $182,228,449

National Communications System $4,310,150

Transportation Security Administration $351,511

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services $304,257

96 Department of Homeland Security, “Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment

Request,” 69 Federal Register 9350, February 27, 2004.




U.S. Coast Guard $183,542,905

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement $7,7,487,035

U.S. Secret Service $8,800

Department of Housing and Urban Development $41,700,880

Department of Justice $29,976,879

U.S. Parole Commission $2,056,790

Department of Labor $925,851

Occupational Safety and Health Administration $4,958,193

Department of State $18,101

Department of the Interior $234,730

Bureau of Indian Affairs $21,189

Bureau of Reclamation $820,442

National Park Service $52,921

U.S. Geological Survey $471,065

Department of Transportation $442,007,004

Federal Aviation Administration $7,433

Department of the Treasury $1,754,433

Department of Veterans Affairs $2,931,612

Agency for International Development $1,749,789

American Red Cross $11,159

Corporation for National and Community Service $1,028,304

Environmental Protection Agency $264,062,645

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission $354,546

General Services Administration $56,410,169

National Aeronautics and Space Administration $1,768,211

National Archives and Records Administration $434,350

National Capital Planning Commission $7,469

National Labor Relations Board $215,543

Office of Personnel Management $400,000

Office of the Chief Financial Officer $70,100

Railroad Retirement Board $5,419

Social Security Administration $817,509

Tennessee Valley Authority $9,039,858

U.S. Postal Service $129,208

Total $5,941,178,581

Source: Unpublished data provided by FEMA.



Notes: Mission Assignments were given to departments as well as the entities within some of the departments.

The obligations data in the table reflect both department-wide and sub-department entity-specific obligations for

mission assignments. Totals are not provided for each agency.

Table 18. Mission Assignments by Agency: Hurricane Gustav



Department of Agriculture $45,000

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service $178,465


Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration $15,000

Department of Defense

Army Corps of Engineers-Mississippi Valley Division $105,349,225

Army Corps of Engineers-South Atlantic Division $1,587,780

Army Corps of Engineers-South Western Division $831,710

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency $62,000




Customs and Border Protection $857,000

Federal Communications Commission $75,000


Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Program $220,000

National Communications System $48,426


U.S. Coast Guard $571,960

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement $82,411

Department of Housing and Urban Development $140,000

Department of Justice $1,281,144

Department of Labor $10,000

Occupational Safety and Health Administration $35,000

Department of State $40,000


National Park Service $300,000

Department of Transportation $621,904

Department of Treasury $50,000

Department of Veterans Affairs $10,000

Corporation for National and Community Service $252,049







Total $161,322,222


Notes: Mission assignments were given to departments as well as the entities within some of the departments.



Table 19. Mission Assignments by Agency: Hurricane Ike



Department of Agriculture $2,153,188


Department of Defense $25,030,836

Army Corps of Engineers—Mississippi Valley Division $19,200,000

Army Corps of Engineers—South Atlantic Division $7,926

Army Corps of Engineers—South Western Division $243,230,000

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency $808,051




Customs and Border Protection $580,000


Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Program $340,000

National Communication System $135,000


U.S. Coast Guard $668,180

Department of Housing and Urban Development $1,346,668

Department of Justice $386,398

Department of Labor

Occupational Safety and Health Administration $30,000


Bureau of Indian Affairs $10,000

U.S. Geological Survey $558,485

Department of Transportation $115,597

Federal Aviation Administration $250,000

Department of Treasury $4,011

Department of Veterans Affairs $260,000




Corporation for National and Community Service $84,236




Total $441,280,673


Notes: Mission assignments were given to departments as well as the entities within some of the departments.



Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)97

Community Development Block Grants

Program Authority

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was first authorized as Title I of the

Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, P.L. 93-383, (42 U.S. C. §5301, et al.).

Program Description

Funds are allocated by formula to states, Puerto Rico, and eligible (entitlement) communities to

be used to fund eligible housing, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development

activities. After funds are set aside for Indian tribes and insular areas 70% of each year’s annual

CDBG program appropriation must be allocated to CDBG entitlement communities, including

metropolitan cities with populations of 50,000 persons or more, central cities of metropolitan

areas, and statutorily defined urban counties. The remaining 30% of appropriated funds are

allocated to states for distribution to non-entitlement communities.

Eligible activities must meet one of three national objectives. The activity must:

principally benefit low or moderate income persons;

aid in preventing or eliminating slums or blight; or

address an imminent threat to the health or welfare of residents of an area,

including disaster relief, mitigation, and long-term recovery activities.

In addition, a state or entitlement community grantee must certify that it will expend at least 70%

of its CDBG allocation over a three-year period on eligible activities principally benefiting low-

and moderate-income persons.

In addition to allowing a state or entitlement community to fund disaster-recovery efforts under

the CDBG’s imminent threat national objective using CDBG regular appropriation, Congress has,

at its discretion, appropriated additional supplemental CDBG funds in response to presidentially

declared disasters. In addition to appropriating funds for disaster recovery activities, the statute

authorizing the CDBG program grants the Department of Housing and Urban Development

97 This section was authored by Maggie McCarty, Specialist in Housing Policy and Eugene Boyd, Analyst in

Federalism and Economic Development Policy.



(HUD) the authority to waive or modify program regulations, except those relating to public

notice, fair housing, civil rights, labor standards, environmental review, and the program’s low-

and moderate-income targeting requirement, when CDBG funds are used to respond to

presidentially declared major disasters.98

Funds are allocated to states and communities to cover unmet needs not covered by state and

local efforts, private insurers, and standard federal disaster programs administered by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration, and the Army Corps of

Engineers. As a condition of funding, grantees are required to submit, for HUDs approval, a

disaster recovery plan.

Funding

In the aggregate, the six states identified in Table 20 were awarded a total of $23.971 billion in

CDBG disaster relief assistance to fund disaster relief activities in response to the five hurricanes

identified in the table. Nearly 60% of this amount was allocated to Louisiana while Mississippi

received approximately 30% of the total.

Five of the six states included in Table 20 received a total allocation of $19.672 billion in

response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005. Louisiana received the largest share (75%) of this

amount followed by Mississippi (28%), Texas (2.5%), Florida (1%), and Alabama (less than 1%).

A total of $4.296 billion was awarded to five of six states included in Table 20 to support disaster

recovery activities in response to Hurricane Ike. Texas accounted for 71% of the total followed by

Louisiana (25%), Tennessee (2%), Florida (1.8%), and Mississippi (less than 1%).

Table 20. Distribution of CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds for Selected States, by

Disaster Declaration

(Allocations as of Feb. 25, 2013; Dollars in Thousands)


Katrina-Rita-

Wilma

$95,614 $182,970 $13,410,000 $5,481,221 — $503,194 $19,672,999

Gustav — — — $2,281 — — $2,281

Ike — $81,063 $1,058.690 $6,283 $92,517 $3,057,919 $4,296,472

Total $95,614 $264,033 $14,468,690 $5,489,785 $92,517 $3,561,113 $23,971,752

Source: HUD, available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/

communitydevelopment/programs/drsi/activegrantee.

Notes: Allocations for Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Rita were reported and presented as an aggregated total.

Rental Assistance/Section 8 Vouchers

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, authorized at 42 U.S.C. §1437f(o), provides

portable rent subsidies that low-income families can use to rent housing units offered by private

market landlords. Families with vouchers contribute an income-based payment towards their rent

98 42 U.S.C. §5321. For funds designated under this chapter by a recipient to address the damage in an area for which

the President has declared a disaster under title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

Act [42 U.S.C. §5170 et seq.], the Secretary may suspend all requirements for purposes of assistance under §5306 of

this title for that area, except for those related to public notice of funding availability, nondiscrimination, fair housing,

labor standards, environmental standards, and requirements that activities benefit persons of low and moderate income.



(generally equal to 30% of a family’s income), and the federal government, through local public

housing authorities (PHAs), pays the landlord the difference between the tenant’s contribution

and the contract rent for the unit.

Congress provided over $555 million to HUD to provide rental assistance (in the form of Section

8 Housing Choice Vouchers) to families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The first $390

million of that amount was appropriated to HUD to provide temporary rental assistance vouchers

to families that were previously assisted by HUD programs, but were displaced by the 2005

hurricanes.

Later, HUD was given a mission assignment by FEMA to begin providing rental assistance to all

remaining households displaced by the 2005 hurricanes. HUD named this program the Disaster

Housing Assistance Program (DHAP), and the cost of the DHAP was covered by FEMA’s

Disaster Relief Fund. Following Hurricane Ike, FEMA and HUD established another Disaster

Housing Assistance Program (DHAP-Ike) for families displaced by that storm, also funded

through the DRF under a mission assignment.

Following the first appropriation, and establishment of the mission assignments, Congress

appropriated $85 million for HUD to fund the cost of ongoing, permanent Section 8 rental

assistance vouchers for displaced families whose temporary housing assistance under DHAP-

Katrina was expiring. Congress later appropriated an additional $80 million to create new Section

8 rental assistance vouchers in the areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Table 21 provides the total appropriations for disaster-related rental assistance vouchers. It does

not provide allocations by state for all rental assistance funding because that information is not

readily available and would be difficult to determine. Most of the funding for rental assistance

was not allocated to the local public housing authorities (PHAs) administering the program by

state. Rather, it was allocated based on where displaced families were living. For example, a PHA

in Texas may have been administering a voucher on behalf of the Housing Authority of New

Orleans for a family who was living in New Orleans before the storm, but relocated to Alabama

after the storm.99 The $80 million for new vouchers was allocated to housing authorities and

Table 21 provides a break-down by state for those funds.

Supportive Housing

The Louisiana Recovery Corporation titled its recovery plan, which was primarily funded with

emergency CDBG funding, the “Road Home” program. As shown in Table 21, Congress

appropriated $73 million to HUD for allocation to Louisiana’s Road Home program (Supportive

Housing) to fund the creation of permanent supportive housing units for the elderly and persons

with disabilities. Of that amount, $50 million was appropriated through an existing homeless

assistance grant program that serves homeless persons with disabilities (called Shelter Plus Care)

(authorized at 42 U.S.C. Chapter 119) and $23 million was appropriated through the Section 8

Housing Choice Voucher program.100

99 The Housing Authority of New Orleans sustained so much damage as a result of the storm that they contracted with a

PHA in Harris County, TX, to administer their voucher program for them.

100 For more information about the Shelter Plus Care program, see CRS Report RL33764, The HUD Homeless

Assistance Grants: Programs Authorized by the HEARTH Act, by Libby Perl; for more information about Section 8

vouchers, see CRS Report RL32284, An Overview of the Section 8 Housing Programs: Housing Choice Vouchers and

Project-Based Rental Assistance, by Maggie McCarty.



Public Housing Repair

Low-rent public housing is federally subsidized housing owned and operated by local PHAs and

available to low-income families. Several public housing developments, particularly in New

Orleans, suffered severe damage after Hurricane Katrina. As shown in Table 21, Congress

appropriated $15 million in emergency funding to HUD’s public housing capital fund (authorized

at 42 U.S.C. §1437g), which was allocated to PHAs to aid in the repair of severely damaged

public housing in Louisiana.

Inspector General

As shown in Table 21, Congress appropriated $7 million for the HUD Inspector General to help

fund the cost of enhanced oversight over disaster recovery funding.

Table 21. Disaster Relief Funding by the Department of Housing and Urban

Development

(Allocations; Dollars in Thousands)

Department of

Housing And Urban

Development Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Rental

Assistance/Section 8

Vouchersa

$6,109 $10,980 $16,908 $16,797 $27,706 $78,500

Supportive Housing — — $73,000 — — $73,000

Public Housing Repair — — $15,000 — — $15,000

Inspector Generalb N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $7,000

Total $6,109 $10,980 $104,908 $16,797 $27,706 $173,500

Source: Table prepared by CRS. Figures are based on P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-234, P.L. 110-28, P.L. 110-116, P.L.

110-252, P.L. 110-329, and P.L. 111-32. Community Development Block Grant allocations taken from

https://web.archive.org/web/20120808044154/http://portal.hud.gov:80/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/

comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs/drsi/activegrantee. Rental Assistance/Section 8 Voucher

allocations taken from https://web.archive.org/web/20170222002106/https:/www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/

sec1203/thu-cong-ntf.pdf. Public Housing repair information was taken from HUD’s FY2010 Congressional

Budget Justifications.

Notes: Total amounts allocated do not equal total amounts appropriated in some cases because funds have

been reserved by the department for administrative costs.

a. Note that state allocations are only provided for the $80 million provided for new vouchers by P.L. 111-32.

b. An additional $7 million provided by P.L. 109-234 for Community Development Block Grants was required

to be transferred to the Office of Inspector General.

Department of Justice101

Established by an “Act to Establish the Department of Justice”102 with the Attorney General at its

head, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provides counsel for the government in federal cases and

protects citizens through law enforcement. It represents the federal government in all

proceedings, civil and criminal, before the U.S. Supreme Court. In legal matters, generally, the

101 This section was authored by Nathan James, Analyst in Crime Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.

102 28 U.S.C. §501.



department provides legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and executive

branch department heads.

To date, the DOJ has received a total of $287.5 million in supplemental appropriations for

departmental expenses related to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and to award grants to Gulf

Coast states. Table 22 provides a breakdown of how DOJ obligated disaster funding amongst

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Legal Activities

Program Authority or Authorities

Subtitle A of Title XI of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization

Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) authorized appropriations for the General Legal Activities and U.S.

Attorneys accounts. For the General Legal Activities account the act authorized $679.7 million

for FY2006, $706.8 million for FY2007, $735.1 million for FY2008, and $764.5 million for

FY2009. For the U.S. Attorneys account the act authorized $1.626 billion for FY2006, $1.691

billion for FY2007, $1.795 billion for FY2008, and $1.829 billion for FY2009.

Program Description

The Legal Activities account includes several sub-accounts, including General Legal Activities

and the U.S. Attorneys. The General Legal Activities sub-account funds the Solicitor General’s

supervision of DOJ’s conduct in proceedings before the Supreme Court. It also funds several

departmental divisions (tax, criminal, civil, environment and natural resources, legal counsel,

civil rights, INTERPOL, and dispute resolution). The U.S. Attorneys enforce federal laws through

prosecution of criminal cases and represent the federal government in civil actions in all of the 94

federal judicial districts.103

Funding Narrative

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated a total of $17.5 million in supplemental appropriations for

this account. This amount included $2.0 million for General Legal Activities and a total of $15.5

million for the U.S. Attorneys. Chapter 8 of Title II of the Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L.

109-234) provided $2 million for General Legal Activities “to investigate and prosecute fraud

cases related to hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region.”104 Chapter 8 of Title I of Division B of the

Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the

Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148) provided $9 million for the

U.S. Attorneys “to support operational recovery from hurricane-related damage in the Gulf Coast

region.”105 Chapter 8 of Title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,

the Global War on Terror and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234) provided the U.S.

103 U.S. Department of Justice, Offices of the United States Attorneys, “United States Attorneys’ Mission Statement,”

available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/about/mission.html.

104 U.S. Congress, House, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,

2006 and Other Purposes, Conference Report, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2006, H.Rept. 109-494 (Washington:

GPO, 2006), p. 128.

105 U.S. Congress, House, Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September

30, 2006, and Other Purposes, Conference Report, 109th Cong., 1st sess., December 18, 2005, H.Rept. 109-359

(Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 514.



Attorneys with $6.5 million “to investigate and prosecute fraud cases related to hurricanes in the

Gulf Coast region.”106

United States Marshals Service



Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) authorized $800.3 million for FY2006, $832.3 million for FY2007,

$865.6 million for FY2008, and $900.2 million for FY2009 for the United States Marshals

Service (USMS) account.

Program Description

The federal marshals’ service was founded in 1789, making it the oldest federal law enforcement

agency. A presidentially appointed U.S. marshal directs the operations of the marshals’ services in

each of the 94 federal judicial districts. The USMS facilitates the functioning of the federal

judicial process by providing protection for judges, attorneys, witnesses, and jurors and providing

physical security in courthouses. The USMS is the federal government’s primary agency for

fugitive investigations. USMS task forces combine the efforts of federal, state, and local law

enforcement agencies to locate and arrest fugitives. The Marshals Service also works with

international law enforcement agencies to apprehend fugitives who have fled abroad and to

apprehend foreign fugitives who have entered the United States. The USMS executes all federal

arrest warrants. The USMS manages and sells assets which were seized or forfeited by federal

law enforcement agencies.107 The assets managed and sold by the USMS are assets that represent

the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate federal crimes.108 The Marshals Service is responsible

for housing and transporting all federal detainees from the time they are arrested until they are

either acquitted or convicted and delivered to their designated federal prison. The USMS operates

the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS), which transports prisoners

between judicial districts, correctional facilities, and foreign countries. The USMS is also

responsible for administering the federal witness security program, which provides for the

security and safety of government witnesses and their authorized family members, whose lives

are in danger as a result of their cooperation with the U.S. government.109

Funding Narrative

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated $9 million in supplemental appropriations for the U.S.

Marshal’s Service. Chapter 8 of Title I of Division B of the Department of Defense, Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic

Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148) provided $9 million for the USMS’s salaries and expenses

106 U.S. Congress, House, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,

2006 and Other Purposes, Conference Report, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2006, H.Rept. 109-494 (Washington:

GPO, 2006), p. 128.

107 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service, “Overview of the U.S. Marshals Service,” available at

https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/index.html.

108 U.S. Department of Justice, “Assets Forfeiture Program¸” available at http://www.justice.gov/jmd/afp/.

109 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service, “Overview of the U.S. Marshals Service,” available at

https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/overview.pdf.



account “to support operational recovery from hurricane-related damage in the Gulf Coast

region.”110

Federal Bureau of Investigation



Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) authorized $5.761 billion for FY2006, $5.992 billion for FY2007,

$6.231 billion for FY2008, and $6.481 billion for FY2009 for the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) account.

Program Description

The FBI was founded in 1908. Its headquarters is in Washington, DC, and it has 56 field offices

located in major cities throughout the United States and its territories and another 380 resident

agencies in cities and towns across the nation. In addition, the FBI has more than 60 international

offices called “legal attachés” in U.S. embassies worldwide. The FBI is the lead federal

investigative agency charged with defending the country against foreign terrorist and intelligence

threats; enforcing federal criminal laws; and providing leadership and criminal justice services to

federal, state, municipal, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies and partners. The FBI

focuses on protecting the United States from internal and external threats and investigations that

are too large or too complex for state and local authorities to handle on their own. The priorities

of the FBI include:

protecting the United States from terrorist attack;

protecting the United States against foreign intelligence operations and

espionage;

protecting the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology

crimes;

combating public corruption;

protecting civil rights;

investigating transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises;

investigating major white-collar crime;

investigating significant violent crime; and

supporting federal, state, local and international partners.111

The FBI collects and disseminates national crime data through the Uniform Crime Reports

(UCR).112 The FBI also operates several national law enforcement information sharing systems

such as the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS),113 the Law Enforcement National Data




111 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “About,” available at https://www.fbi.gov/about/

mission.

112 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Uniform Crime Reports,” available at

https://ucr.fbi.gov/.

113 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Combined DNA Index System (CODIS),” available at



Exchange (N-Dex),114 the Next Generation Identification System (NGI),115 the National Instant

Criminal Background Check System (NICS),116 and the National Crime Information Center

(NCIC).117

Funding Narrative

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated $45 million in supplemental appropriations for the FBI.

Chapter 8 of Title I of Division B of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006

(P.L. 109-148) provided $45 million for the FBI’s salaries and expenses account “to support

operational recovery from hurricane-related damage in the Gulf Coast region.”118

Drug Enforcement Administration




$1.856 billion for FY2008, and $1.930 billion for FY2009 for the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) account.

Program Description

The DEA was established in 1973 through an executive order issued by President Nixon.119 The

DEA has 226 domestic and 85 foreign offices.120 The DEA’s mission is “to enforce the controlled

substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice

system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal

members of organizations, involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled

substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States; and to recommend and

support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis.

114 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “N-Dex: National Law Enforcement Data Exchange,”

available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/n-dex.

115 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Next Generation Identification (NGI),” available at

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/ngi.

116 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “National Instant Criminal Background Check

System,” available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics.

117 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “National Crime Information Center,” available at

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic.




119 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “DEA History,” available at https://www.dea.gov/

about/history.shtml.

120 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Domestic Office Locations,” available at

https://www.dea.gov/about/Domesticoffices.shtml. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration,

Foreign Office Locations, available at https://www.dea.gov/about/foreignoffices.shtml.



substances on the domestic and international markets.”121 The DEA’s primary responsibilities

include:

investigating major violators of controlled substance laws operating at interstate

and international levels;

management of a national drug intelligence program in cooperation with federal,

state, local, and foreign officials to collect, analyze, and disseminate strategic and

operational drug intelligence information;

seizure and forfeiture of assets derived from, traceable to, or intended to be used

for illicit drug trafficking;

enforcement of the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act as they pertain to

the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of legally produced controlled

substances;

reduction of illicit drugs on the United States market through methods such as

crop eradication, crop substitution, and training of foreign officials; and

liaison with the United Nations, Interpol, and other organizations on matters

relating to international drug control programs.122

Funding Narrative

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated $10 million in supplemental appropriations for this

account. Chapter 8 of Title I of Division B of the Department of Defense, Emergency


Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148) provided $10 million for the DEA’s salaries and expenses

account “to support operational recovery from hurricane-related damage in the Gulf Coast

region.”123

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives



Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) authorized $923.6 million for FY2006, $960.6 million for FY2007,

$999.0 million for FY2008, and $1.039 billion for FY2009 for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) account.

Program Description

The ATF enforces federal criminal law related to the manufacture, importation, and distribution of

alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives.124 The ATF’s responsibilities were transferred from the

121 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “DEA Mission Statement,” available at

https://www.dea.gov/about/mission.shtml.

122 Ibid.




124 CRS Report R44189, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF): FY2016 Appropriations, by

William J. Krouse.



Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice as a part of the Homeland Security Act

(P.L. 107-296).125 The ATF works both independently and through partnerships with industry

groups, international, state, and local governments, and other federal agencies to investigate and

reduce crime involving firearms and explosives, acts of arson and bombings, and illegal

trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.126

Funding Narrative

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated $20 million in supplemental appropriations for the ATF.



(P.L. 109-148) provided $20 million for the ATF’s salaries and expenses account “to support

operational recovery from hurricane-related damage in the Gulf Coast region.”127

Federal Prison System (Bureau of Prisons)

Program Authority



$5.479 billion for FY2008, and $5.698 billion for FY2009 for the Federal Prison System account.

Program Description

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was established in 1930 to house federal inmates, to professionalize

the prison service, and to ensure consistent and centralized administration of the federal prison

system.128 The BOP’s mission is to protect society by confining offenders in prisons and

community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and

that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities for inmates so that they can become

productive citizens after they are released.129 BOP currently operates 118 correctional facilities

across the country.130

125 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, “ATF’s History,” available at

http://www.atf.gov/about/history/.

126 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives, “Congressional Budget Submission, Fiscal Year 2016,” p. 5, available at

https://edit.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/pages/attachments/2015/02/02/

26._bureau_of_alcohol_tobacco_firearms_and_explosives_atf.pdf.




128 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, “About the Bureau of Prisons,” available at http://www.bop.gov/

about/index.jsp.

129 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, “Mission and Vision of the Bureau of Prisons,” available at

https://www.bop.gov/about/agency/agency_pillars.jsp.

130 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, “About the Bureau of Prisons,” available at http://www.bop.gov/

about/index.jsp.



Funding Narrative

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated $11 million in supplemental appropriations for the BOP.



(P.L. 109-148) provided $11 million for the BOP’s buildings and facilities account “to repair

hurricane-related damage in the Gulf Coast region.”131

Office of Justice Programs

Program Authorities

Congress has not traditionally authorized appropriations for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP);

rather it has authorized appropriations for grant programs administered by the OJP. The funding

appropriated by Congress for the OJP under the Department of Defense, Emergency


Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148) was not appropriated pursuant to any authorized grant

program. Congress appropriated funding for OJP’s State and Local Law Enforcement assistance

account for the OJP to award to states affected by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. The

funding appropriated by Congress for the OJP under the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care,

Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 110-28) was

appropriated pursuant to an authorization for the Byrne Discretionary Grant program. This

program was previously authorized under Part B of Subchapter V of Chapter 46 of Title 42 of the

U.S. Code. However, the authorization was repealed by Section 1111(b)(1) of the Violence

Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162). Congress

continued to appropriate funding for the Byrne Discretionary Grant program until FY2011 when

the program’s funding was eliminated due to the earmark ban put in place by the 112th Congress.

Program Description

The OJP manages and coordinates the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of

Victims of Crime (OVC), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and related grant programs.

Through its component offices and bureaus, OJP disseminates knowledge and practices across

America and provides grants for the implementation of crime fighting strategies. NIJ focuses on

research, development, and evaluation of crime control and justice issues. NIJ funds research,

development, and technology assistance, as well as assesses programs, policies, and technologies.

BJS collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates information on crime, criminal offenders,

crime victims, and criminal justice operations. BJS also provides financial and technical support

to state, local, and tribal governments to improve their statistical capabilities and the quality and

the utility of their criminal history records. OJJDP assists local community endeavors to

effectively avert and react to juvenile delinquency and victimization. OJJDP seeks to improve the

juvenile justice system and its policies so that the public is better protected, youth and their

families are better served, and offenders are held accountable. OVC distributes federal funds to

victim assistance programs across the country. OVC offers training programs for professionals

and their agencies that specialize in helping victims. BJA provides leadership and assistance to






local criminal justice programs that improve and reinforce the nation’s criminal justice system.

BJA’s goals are to reduce and prevent crime, violence, and drug abuse and to improve the way in

which the criminal justice system functions.132

Funding Narrative

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated $175 million for OJP for grants to assist states affected by

hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Chapter 8 of Title I of Division B of the Department of

Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,

and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148) included $125 million for OJP’s State and

Local Law Enforcement Assistance account for “necessary expenses related to the direct or

indirect consequences of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in calendar year 2005.” Chapter 2 of

Title IV of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability

Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 110-28) included $50 million under OJP’s State and Local Law

Enforcement Assistance Account for the Byrne Discretionary Grant program. Language in the

law stated that funds provided under this program were to be used for local law enforcement

initiatives in the Gulf Coast region related to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Congress also

required OJP to award the $50 million it received under the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’

Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 based upon each

affected state’s level of reported violent crime in 2005.

Table 22. Disaster Relief Funding for the Department of Justice

(Obligations: Dollars in Thousands)

Department of Justice Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Other Total

Criminal Division — — $440 — — $935 $1,375

Civil Division — — — — — $625 $625

U.S. Attorneys $79 $1,019 $8,806 $3,545 $627 $1,424 $15,500

U.S. Marshals Service — $105 $3,002 $1,066 $1,830 $2,995 $9,000

Federal Bureau of

Investigation $993 $439 $18,469 $674 $107 $24,318 $45,000

Drug Enforcement

Administration $1,906 $2 $4,302 $1,848 $135 $1,807 $10,000

Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives

— — — — — $20,000 $20,000

Bureau of Prisons — $4,100 — — $6,900 — $11,000

Office of Justice

Programs $26,448 — $82,830 $65,683 $20,000 — $195,000

Source: Unpublished data provided by U.S. Department of Justice, December 12, 2012.

Notes: The “other” categories includes funds that were not allocated specifically to an individual state, but

benefited recovery efforts generally; funds that were unable to be broken out by state due to incomplete

financial information (ATF only); and funds that expired. Obligations for the Office of Justice Programs includes

$20 million in deobligated funds from other OJP accounts. Figures have been rounded.

132 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Justice Programs, “Congressional Budget

Submission, Fiscal Year 2018,” available at https://www.justice.gov/file/969001/download.



Department of Labor133

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Dislocated Worker

Activities134

National Dislocated Worker Grants

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor administers

“federal government job training and worker dislocation programs, federal grants to states for

public employment service programs, and unemployment insurance benefits. These services are

primarily provided through state and local workforce development systems.”135

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, P.L. 113-128), whose programs are

administered primarily by ETA, is the primary federal employment and training legislation.

WIOA authorizes several job training programs: state formula grants for Adult, Youth, and

Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities; Job Corps; and other national programs,

including Native American Programs, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs, and a series

of competitive grant programs authorized under Section 169 of WIOA.

ETA provides funding assistance for disaster relief activities primarily through the Dislocated

Worker program, specifically by National Dislocated Worker Grants (DWG). DWGs are

authorized under WIOA Section 170 and are for employment and training assistance to workers

affected by major economic dislocations, such as plant closures, mass layoffs, or natural disasters.

These DWGs are awarded primarily to states and local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs)

to provide services for eligible individuals, including dislocated workers, civilian employees of

the Departments of Defense or Energy employed at an installation that is being closed within 24

months of eligibility determination, employees or contractors with the Department of Defense at

risk of dislocation due to reduced defense expenditures, or certain other members of the Armed

Forces. Services include job search assistance and training for eligible workers. In addition, DWG

funding may be used to provide direct employment ("disaster relief employment”) to individuals

for a period of up to 12 months for work related to a disaster.

A majority of WIOA funding for the Dislocated Worker program is allocated by formula grants to

states (which in turn allocate funds to local entities) to provide training and related services to

individuals who have lost their jobs and are unlikely to return to those jobs or similar jobs in the

same industry. The remainder of the appropriation is reserved by DOL for a National Reserve

account, which in part provides for the DWGs.136

133 This section was authored by David Bradley, Specialist in Labor Economics, Domestic Social Policy Division.

134 The grants described in this section are authorized by WIOA, which replaced the Workforce Investment Act (WIA;

P.L. 105-220) in 2014. WIA authorized similar grants—National Emergency Grants (NEGs)—that provided the

authority for grants described in Table 26, which were issued prior to WIOA. NEGs and DWGs are substantively

similar.

135 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, “About ETA”, available at

http://www.doleta.gov/etainfo/.

136 Specifically, WIOA §132(a)(2)(A) requires that 20% of the amount appropriated for Dislocated Worker

Employment and Training Activities be reserved for national dislocated worker grants, projects, and technical

assistance. The remaining 80% is to be used for state formula grants.



Funding Narrative

The Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in

the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-148) provided $125 million in

appropriations to ETA to award National Emergency Grants (NEGs) related to the consequences

of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in calendar year 2005. P.L. 109-148 specified that the

appropriations were to remain available until June 30, 2006, and that the funds could be used to

replace NEG funds previously obligated to the hurricane-impacted areas. In calendar year (CY)

2006, Alabama received $667,000, Louisiana $36.4 million, Mississippi $46.7 million, and Texas

$64.9 million in NEG funding. The total of $148.6 million in NEG funding awarded to the five

states, shown in Table 23, exceeds the $125 million appropriated in P.L. 109-148. In providing

the award amounts and projects, ETA does not distinguish awards by funding source. Thus, some

of the funding shown in Table 23 is from the NEG funding in the regular annual WIA National

Reserve appropriations.137

The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and

Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234) provided $16 million in appropriations to ETA for

“necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the

2005 season, for the construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps centers.” P.L. 109-

234 specified that the funds were to remain available until expended. Job Corps, which is

administered by ETA, is primarily a residential job training program first established in 1964 that

provides educational and career services to low-income individuals ages 16 to 24, primarily

through contracts administered by DOL with corporations and nonprofit organizations. Most

participants in the Job Corps program work toward attaining a high school diploma or a General

Educational Development (GED) certificate, with a subset also receiving career technical

training. Currently, Job Corps centers operate in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto

Rico. The $16 million provided in P.L. 109-234 for construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of

Job Corps centers was most likely used for repair of the Gulfport (Mississippi) and New Orleans

Job Corps centers, which were damaged during Hurricane Katrina.138

Table 23. Disaster Relief Funding by the Department of Labor

(Cumulative obligations as of December 2006; Dollars in Millions)

Department of Labor Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Employment and Training

Administration

National Emergency Grants $0.67 — $36.4 $46.7 $64.9 $148.6

Office of the Secretary

137 NEG award amounts were obtained from ETA. ETA reports grants awarded by state and type of project in each

calendar year. Because the supplemental appropriations became law December 30, 2005 (P.L. 109-148), the amounts

reported in Table 23 are for calendar year 2006 only. It should be noted that additional NEG funding was provided to

these five states in other calendar years. Florida, for example, received $8.5 million in NEG funding in 2005 for

hurricane-related emergencies; however, given the timing of P.L. 109-148, it does not appear that Florida’s funding

came from the supplemental appropriations identified in Table 23.

138 The PY (program year) 2005 Job Corps Annual Report indicated that, “Following a recent appropriation from

Congress, Job Corps is on the fast track to restoring the Gulfport and New Orleans Job Corps centers, which sustained

damage during Hurricane Katrina.” See U.S. Department of Labor, Job Corps Annual Report: Program Year July 1,

2005 - June 30, 2006, Washington, DC, 2006, p. 27, available at http://www.jobcorps.gov/Libraries/pdf/

py05report.sflb.



Department of Labor Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Job Corps — — — — — $16.0

Total $0.67 — $36.4 $46.7 $64.9 $164.6

Source: CRS compilation of data from the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration,

available at http://www.doleta.gov/neg/cy_awards_LastSix.cfm.

Notes: National Emergency Grant awards in were identified by reviewing the “project name” field of the

Department of Labor Office of National Response data. Projects that identified Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or

Wilma were included. As noted in the text, only NEG awards for CY2006 were included in this table.

Department of Transportation139

DOT is the lead support agency under Emergency Support Function #1: Transportation, under the

NRF. DOT reports on damage to transportation infrastructure and coordinates alternative

transportation services and the restoration and recovery of the transportation infrastructure. At the

time that Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma struck, DOT also worked with FEMA in providing

and coordinating transportation support, such as evacuation aid and shipping of critical supplies

to the disaster area. However, by the time Gustav and Ike struck, DOT had turned over its role in

evacuation aid and the shipping of critical supplies to FEMA.

During the hurricane response, DOT had only one permanent disaster program, the Federal

Highway Administration Emergency Relief Program (ER). Other operating administrations, such

as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, also provided

disaster assistance.

From a budgetary perspective, however, the DOT response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes may be

viewed as either DOT funding or as FEMA funding provided to DOT for the mission assignment

activities assumed by its operating administrations (see Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19).

Funding by the FHWA, FAA, and FTA is briefly described below, and the cumulative total

allocations to the Gulf of Mexico states are provided in Table 24.

Federal Highway Administration: Emergency Relief Program (ER)

ER Program Authorities

The Federal Highway Administration’s Emergency Relief Program (ER) is authorized by Title

23, U.S.C. §125 (Section 120 (e) for federal share payable).140

Program Description141

The ER program provides funds for the repair and reconstruction of roads on the federal-aid

highway system that have suffered serious damage as a result of either (1) a natural disaster over

a wide area, such as a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, tornado, severe storm, or

landslide; or (2) a catastrophic failure from any external cause (for example, the collapse of a

bridge that is struck by a barge). Historically, however, the vast majority of ER funds have gone

for natural disaster repair and reconstruction.

139 This section was authored by Robert S. Kirk, Specialist in Transportation Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry

Division.

140 Regulatory Reference: 23 C.F.R. Part 668.

141 See “Emergency Relief Program” available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm.



ER Funding for Gulf Coast Hurricane Response

ER funding allocations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike totaled almost $3.2

billion. Of this amount, just over $2.8 billion has been obligated; see Table 24. Funding provided

for hurricane relief includes funds from the program’s annual $100 million authorization and

from additional sums provided in supplemental or other appropriations acts. ER funds can only be

used for roads and bridges on the federal-aid highway system. Repair and reconstruction costs for

other damaged roads (mostly local roads and neighborhood streets) may be reimbursed by

FEMA.

Table 24. Emergency Relief Obligations for Gulf Coast Hurricanes

(Obligations as of December 2012; Dollars in Thousands)


Katrina $27,693 $29,448 $1,193,896 $1,085,905 — — $2,336,942

Rita — $793 — — — $37,508 $38,301

Wilma — $271,462 — — — — $271,462

Gustav — — $76,976 $4,825 — — $81,801

Ike — — $17,429 — — $99,923 $117,352

Total $27,693 $301,703 $1,288,301 $1,090,730 — $137,431 $2,845,858

Source: Federal Highway Administration.

Notes: Funds are obligated through a binding agreement, such as a project agreement, entered into by the

Federal Highway Administration and a state.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

FAA has approved $110.5 million for repair and improvements to hurricane-damaged airport and

air traffic control infrastructure.142 Of this amount, $40.6 million was appropriated under the

Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the

Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-148). FAA also provided Airport

Improvement Program discretionary funds for airport repairs in the Gulf of Mexico states.143

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

The U.S. Troop Readiness Veterans’ Care Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability

Appropriations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28) appropriated $35 million for transit relief to the Gulf

Coast states. The distribution of this funding across the Gulf Coast states is shown in Table 25. It

is not unusual for FTA to be tasked by FEMA under a mission assignment to provide transit

assistance to disaster victims. Table 25 does not include these FEMA-reimbursed costs.

142 This total includes $1 million in Airport Improvement Program funding provided on September 19, 2008.

143 The FAA was the lead Operational Administration for the Katrina disaster mission assignment responses. Most of

the mission assignment costs overseen by FAA following Katrina were for services provided by Landstar Express

America, Inc. Landstar provided transport services for the air, sea, and land transportation of supplies and resources.



Table 25. Disaster Relief Funding by Modal Administration/Program

(Allocated Amounts; Dollars in Thousands)

Department of

Transportation Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Federal Aviation

Administration $1,688 $6,356 $21,927 $73,271 $7,256 $110,498

Federal Highway

Administration: Emergency

Relief Program

$27,378 $523,175 $1,410,826 $1,079,712 $142,926 $3,184,017

Federal Transit

Administration $646 $475 $20,453 $12,705 $721 $35,000

Total $29,712 $530,006 $1,453,206 $1,165,688 $150,903 $3,329,515

Source: FAA Office of Government and Industry Affairs, FTA Office of Budget, FHWA.

Notes: The FAA total includes $1 million in Airport Improvement Program funding provided for damage caused

by Hurricane Ike. Totals for FAA and FTA are based on information provided to CRS as of July 13, 2010. FHWA

allocations are as of January 2013. As of January 2012, FHWA began a process of identifying unobligated ER funds

and withdrawing those funds no longer needed for the events for which they were allocated. Consequently,

these figures could change.

Department of Veterans Affairs144

Medical Center in New Orleans

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers programs that provide benefits and other

services to veterans and their spouses, dependents, and beneficiaries. The VA has three primary

organizations to provide these benefits: the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), the Veterans

Health Administration (VHA), and the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). The VHA

provides medical care to eligible veterans and dependents. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive

damage to the VA Medical Center in New Orleans.

Funding Narrative

P.L. 109-148 appropriated additional funds for necessary expenses due to the consequences of the

hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. Funds were appropriated by category, including $198.3

million for medical services, and $26.9 million for general operating expenses, minor

construction, and the National Cemetery Administration. P.L. 109-148 appropriated $367.5

million for major construction, of which $292.5 million was for a new facility in Biloxi, MS, and

$75 million was for advance planning and design work to replace the VA Medical Center in New

Orleans.145

The total amount of appropriations authorized for the new Biloxi VA Medical Center was $310

million. This amount included $292.5 million provided in. P.L. 109-148 and $17.5 million in

regular appropriations. P.L. 111-212 transferred $6 million in bid savings to the Filipino Veterans

Compensation Fund, and $18 million was transferred to New Orleans Medical Center project.

144 This section was authored by Sidath Viranga Panangala, Specialist in Veterans Policy, Domestic Social Policy

Division.

145 For more information see CRS Report RL33409, Veterans’ Medical Care: FY2007 Appropriations, by Sidath

Viranga Panangala.



Later another $11 million was reprogramed from the working reserve for the new Biloxi VA

Medical Center.146 The total estimated cost of the new Biloxi VA Medical Center is $297 million.

While a majority of buildings were completed in December 2011, as of FY2018 some buildings

are still under construction.147

P.L. 109-234 appropriated $585.9 million for major construction by the VA, of which $550

million was for replacing the New Orleans Medical Center. P.L. 112-10 appropriated $310 million

for FY2011, and P.L. 112-74 appropriated $60 million for FY2012, for the New Orleans Medical

Center. In FY2015 $39.5 million and in FY2016 $50 million were respectively reprogrammed

from the working reserve. The total estimated cost of replacing the VA Medical Center in New

Orleans is approximately $1.09 billion.

The site decision for the new VA Medical Center in New Orleans was announced on November

25, 2008, and a groundbreaking ceremony was held on June 25, 2010. However, VA could not

acquire all the land parcels necessary to construct the new medical center until late April 2011.

The construction of the new facility began in May 2011.148 The new medical center was formally

opened on November 18, 2016,149 and activation of various clinics would occur in various

phases.150

Armed Forces Retirement Homes

Gulfport Facility

The Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund provides funds to operate and maintain the

Armed Forces Retirement Homes (AFRH) in Washington, DC (also known as the United States

Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home), and in Gulfport, MS (originally located in Philadelphia, PA, and

known as the United States Naval Home). These two facilities provide long-term housing and

medical care for approximately 1,600 needy veterans. The Gulfport campus, encompassing a 19-

story living accommodation and medical facility tower, was severely damaged by Hurricane

Katrina, and closed at the end of August 2005.

Funding Narrative

P.L. 109-148 appropriated $65.8 million for the AFRH for expenses necessary because of the

Gulf of Mexico hurricanes. Of the $65.8 million, $45 million was for advance planning and

design work to replace the Gulfport, MS, facility, which was nearly destroyed by Hurricane

Katrina. The facility had almost 600 residents, the majority of whom were transferred to the

Washington, DC, facility after the storm. P.L. 109-234 appropriated $176 million for construction

of the new Gulfport facility, and consolidated an additional $64.7 million in previously

appropriated funds for construction of the new facility. P.L. 110-329 and P.L. 111-117 provided

146 Unexpended balances that remain after construction projects are finished are placed in a working reserve and could

be redirected to other major construction projects with approval from Congress or key VA officials based on the dollar

threshold established in appropriation acts.

147 Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2018 Congressional Budget Submission Construction, Long Range Capital Plan

and Appendix, Volume 4 of 4, May 2017, p. 6-172

148 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Deconstructing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Construction Planning, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p.73 and p. 69.

149 https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/33256/celebrating-the-grand-opening-of-the-new-orleans-va-hospital/

150 Department of Veteran Affairs, Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, “Project Legacy - Frequently

Asked Questions,” available at https://www.neworleans.va.gov/Project_Legacy.asp



additional funds ($8.0 million and $72.0 million, respectively) for construction and renovation at

the Washington, DC, and Gulfport facilities (a breakdown between the facilities for the funding is

not available). In October 2010, the new Gulfport facility was completed to which residents

returned.

Corporation for National and Community Service151

The National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), authorized under the National and Community

Service Act of 1990, as amended, is a residential program for individuals age 18 through 24 that

conducts projects related to, among other things, disaster preparedness and relief and recovery

efforts. The $10 million in Emergency Supplemental Funds provided for NCCC in P.L. 109-234

was used to support a range of program operations in the Gulf Region, from staff and member

payroll and travel to covering communications, equipment, and supply costs.152 Funding was used

in FY2007. Approximately $1.3 million went directly to the National Service Trust, which

provides educational awards to NCCC members who complete 10 months of full-time service.

The remaining $8.7 million was used to support program operations; it was not used to support a

specific project or service. Instead, it was combined with the program’s FY2007 appropriation of

$26.8 million and allowed NCCC to direct members from all of its campuses to the Gulf Region

for the recovery effort. The FY2007 appropriation, combined with the $8.7 million in

supplemental funds, was used, among other things, to enable 1,063 members to serve 810,000

hours on 341 relief and recovery projects in the Gulf Region.

To support this work, NCCC partnered with numerous national and local organizations, local

universities and churches, as well as local and federal government, including (but are not limited

to) the American Red Cross; Habitat for Humanity; City Year Louisiana; The Salvation Army;

Hands On Network; Federal Emergency Management Agency; St. Bernard Parish; Tulane,

Xavier, and Dillard Universities; United Way of Acadiana, Louisiana; New Orleans Recovery

School District; Christian Contractors Association, Mississippi; Council on Aging, Louisiana;

Alliance for Affordable Energy; Arc of Greater New Orleans; Blackbelt and Central Alabama

Housing Authority; various Boys and Girls Clubs; Mississippi Commission for Volunteers; and

New Orleans Recreation Department.

Environmental Protection Agency153

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) primary responsibilities include the

implementation of federal statutes regulating air quality, water quality, pesticides, and toxic

substances; the regulation of the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes; and the

cleanup of environmental contamination.154 In the case of declared disasters, FEMA may call on

EPA to provide assistance to state and local governments, most notably in response to releases of

hazardous materials and contaminants from a major disaster or emergency.155

151 This section was authored by former analyst Ann Lordeman and Joselynn Fountain, Analyst in Education Policy,

Domestic Social Policy Division.

152 Information on the use of the $10 million appropriated under P.L. 109-234 was provided by the Corporation for

National and Community Service in correspondence with CRS on July 15, 2009.

153 This section was authored by Robert Esworthy, Environmental Specialist, Resources, Science and Industry Division.

154 See CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental

Protection Agency, coordinated by David M. Bearden. See also U.S. EPA, “Emergency Response,” available at

https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response.

155 See U.S. EPA, “Response to 2005 Hurricanes,” available at https://archive.epa.gov/katrina/web/html/; and U.S.



Hurricane Emergency Response Authorities

In addition to the authorities of a Presidential declaration under the Stafford Act, three federal

laws authorized the development of the regulations that are embodied in the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).156 These regulations serve as EPA’s

standing authority and plan for response to oil spills and releases of hazardous substances.157

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act158 authorizes federal emergency response to oil spills into

U.S. waters, onto adjoining shorelines, or that may affect natural resources under the jurisdiction

of the United States.159 The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) amended the response authorities in

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, and established a liability and compensation framework for

oil spills.160 The Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund) authorizes federal emergency response to

releases of hazardous substances into the environment.161 The President’s response authorities

under these laws are delegated by executive order to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

in the inland zone and to the U.S. Coast Guard in the coastal zone.162 Other response authorities

apply to oil released under certain circumstances not covered by the NCP.163

EPA also has additional emergency response roles related to protecting water infrastructure under

other response plans and authorities if required. EPA is the lead federal agency for the water

sector under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.164 EPA also has statutory “emergency

powers” under the Safe Drinking Water Act to issue orders and commence civil action if a

contaminant likely to enter a public water supply system poses a substantial threat to public

health, and state or local officials have not taken adequate action.165

EPA, “Hurricane Sandy Response and Recovery,” available at https://archive.epa.gov/region02/sandy/web/html/

indexoriginal%20response.html).

156 See 40 C.F.R. Part 300.

157 For further information, see CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response

Framework, by David M. Bearden and Jonathan L. Ramseur.

158 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended, codified at 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

159 33 U.S.C. §1321. For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills: Background and Governance, by

Jonathan L. Ramseur.

160 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.

161 The term “environment” includes surface and subsurface lands, surface waters, groundwater, and ambient air,

making the response authorities for hazardous substances broader in terms of their physical reach than that for oil spills.

42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. For further discussion of the authorities of CERCLA, see CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related

Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.

162 Executive Order 12580 delegated the President’s authorities under CERCLA, and Executive Order 12777 delegated

the President’s authorities under OPA and Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Executive Order 13286 amended these

executive orders to reflect the transfer of the U.S. Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the

Department of Homeland Security in 2003.

163 Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act addresses petroleum leaked from underground storage tanks. This role is

performed mainly by the states under cooperative agreements with EPA.

164 For information on the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and sector-specific agency roles, see the Department

of Homeland Security’s website, available at http://www.dhs.gov/national-infrastructure-protection-plan.

165 42 U.S.C. §300i.



EPA Hurricane Response

EPA’s primary disaster response role is carried out in accordance with the (NCP) as outlined in

the NRF, Emergency Support Function 10 (ESF#10)—Oil and Hazardous Materials Annex.

Under ESF#10, EPA is the lead federal agency for inland incidents and those affecting both inland

and coastal zones.166 EPA also has various other response roles under the NRF and may perform a

wide array of support functions in responding to a disaster or emergency.167 In accordance with

various ESFs, EPA support to other federal agencies (primarily FEMA and the Army Corps of

Engineers) and state and local governments, includes activities necessary to address threats to

human health and the environment focusing on impacts to drinking water and wastewater

treatment facilities and post-disaster cleanup. EPA also may support the Army Corps of Engineers

in its mission under ESF #3—Public Works and Engineering Annex—to remove disaster debris168

and cleanup of water infrastructure facilities, and to DOE under ESF #12—Energy Annex—in its

effort to maintain continuous and reliable energy supplies. In practice, EPA support for this latter

function has generally involved waiving environmental requirements applicable to motor vehicle

fuel under the Clean Air Act. For example, as part of the federal response to hurricanes in 2005,

EPA granted certain waivers under this statute in response to requests from state and local

officials when significant disruptions in fuel production or distribution occurred in the wake of

these natural disasters.169

EPA’s activities following the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes included retrieval and disposal of orphan

(oil) tanks and drums, the collection of household hazardous waste, and the collection of liquid

and semi-liquid waste.170 Additionally, EPA and Corps of Engineers staff conducted assessments,

providing assistance to state and local government personnel to evaluate damages to public

works. Steps involved in actually restoring service include drying out and cleaning engines;

testing and repairing waterlogged electrical systems; testing for toxic chemicals that may have

infiltrated pipes and plants; restoring pressure (drinking water distribution lines); activating

disinfection units; restoring bacteria needed to treat wastes (wastewater plants); and cleaning,

repairing, and flushing distribution and sewer lines. EPA also assisted local agencies with

contaminated (non-hazardous) debris management activities.

Funding Narrative

Initially following the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, EPA conducted assessments and provided

assistance to state and local governments using existing programs and regular funding. After the

initial period EPA was eligible for reimbursement by FEMA for costs associated with these efforts

under a FEMA mission assignment. Funding for EPA’s response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,

166 EPA is the primary agency for the inland zone and incidents affecting both inland and coastal zones; the U.S. Coast

Guard has primary responsibility for coastal incidents and often acts as co-lead.

167 For more information about EPA responsibilities under the National Response Framework, including those under

individual ESFs, see EPA’s “Federal Response Plans” website, available at https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/

epa-and-national-response-framework-nrf.

168 For more information, see CRS Report R44941, Disaster Debris Management: Requirements, Challenges, and

Federal Agency Roles, by Linda Luther.

169 See EPA’s website: “Fuels Waivers Response to 2005 Hurricanes” available at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/

fuel-waivers#2005.

170 EPA activities included assessment and containment of existing Superfund sites and releases from underground

storage tanks. EPA uses funds from the Superfund appropriations account to pay for emergency response activities for

all pre-existing Superfund sites; see “Policy Guidance on ESF #10 Mission Assignments,” available at

https://www.nrt.org/sites/2/files/Suiter_Makris_Policy_Guidance_on_ESF.pdf.



Wilma, Gustav, and Ike was primarily through the FEMA mission assignments and interagency

agreements with FEMA. EPA indicated that of the $505 million received cumulatively through

interagency agreements for its response to the five hurricanes, $497 million was expended.171

In addition to the mission assignment from FEMA, EPA received a cumulative total of $21

million in emergency supplemental appropriations under P.L. 109-148 enacted December 30,

2005, and P.L. 109-234, enacted June 15, 2006. Under P.L. 109-148, EPA received $8 million in

emergency supplemental FY2006 appropriations for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank

Program (LUST) for necessary expenses to address the most immediate underground storage tank

needs in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. P.L. 109-234 increased EPA’s FY2006

appropriation by an additional $7 million for assessing underground storage tanks that may have

leaked in affected areas, and made $6 million available through EPA’s Environmental Programs

and Management (EPM) appropriations account for increased environmental monitoring,

assessment, and analytical support to protect public health during the ongoing recovery and

reconstruction efforts related to the consequences of the 2005 hurricane season.

EPA provided the cumulative $15 million included in the two supplemental appropriations under

the LUST program to Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi in the form of grants for assessment

and containment of underground tanks (by statute not to exceed $85,000 per project). EPA

reported no allocation of this funding to Florida or Texas. The per-state distribution was

determined jointly by EPA and the affected states based on the site evaluation information

available at the time. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)

indicated completion of site work related to Katrina and initiated a return of unliquidated

obligations totaling $364,670. The majority of the $6 million emergency appropriations provided

within the EPA Environmental Programs and Management appropriations account was used to

fund contractors for analytical and other disaster support and to purchase equipment, including

replacement of expended or damaged air monitors, within Louisiana and Mississippi. Funding

was also provided for similar purposes in Alabama and Florida. No EPM funding allocation was

reported for Texas. EPA provided $1.4 million of the EPM supplemental funding to its Office of

Research and Development and Office of Air and Radiation for continued disaster and emergency

response support, including analysis in its laboratories and air monitoring, across states affected

by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Table 26. Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA): P.L. 109-148 and P.L. 109-234

(FY2006 Appropriations as Received and Distributed to States; Dollars in Thousands)

Department/Agency/Program Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Leaking Underground Storage

Tanks (LUST) Trust Fund $632 — $10,947 $3,421 — $15,000

Environmental Programs and

Management (EPM) $180 $96 $3,073 $1,241 — $4,590

Total $812 $96 $14,020 $4,662 — $19,590

171 The funding received includes $800,000 received through a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers interagency agreement.

The total received amounts as reported by EPA reflected adjustments resulting from quarterly reviews on all Mission

Assignments and Interagency Agreements performed jointly by FEMA/DHS, EPA Cincinnati finance office, EPA

Regional Program Office, and Federal Coordinating Officers, and funding EPA provided back to FEMA.



Source: CRS interpretation of data provided by the U.S. EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

through the Agency’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) August 2010.

Notes: P.L. 109-148 and P.L. 109-234 provided a cumulative total of $15 million in emergency funding within

EPA’s LUST Trust Fund account. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) indicated

completion of site work related to Katrina and initiated a return of unliquidated obligations totaling $364,670.

P.L. 109-234 provided $6.0 million in emergency funding within EPA’s EPM account. The total amount shown in

the table for EPA’s EPM account does not reflect $1.4 million for EPA’s Office of Research and Development and

Office of Air and Radiation. Amounts in the table may not add due to rounding.

EPA Regular Appropriations

General appropriation funds available to states in the form of grants from EPA may also have

been used in the 2005 and 2008 hurricane recovery efforts, in particular, capitalization grants

from the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs).172 The SRFs are

funded within the EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriations account. SRF

grant funding is used for local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as

construction of and modification to municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water

treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act

requirements, respectively. Although, following a presidentially declared emergency, public

drinking water and wastewater utilities are eligible for FEMA supplemental federal disaster grant

assistance for the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster damaged facilities,173 the portions

of the annual fiscal year SRF grant allotments to states may have also been used to supplement

these projects.

EPA allocates annual appropriations for these capitalization grants among the states based on an

established formula authorized in the Clean Water Act and based on needs surveys under the Safe

Drinking Water Act.174 States must provide 20% matching funds in order to receive the federal

funds. States combine their matching funds with the federal monies to capitalize their SRFs,

which they use to issue low-interest or no interest loans to finance local water infrastructure

projects in communities. The recipients generally must repay the loan to the issuing state. For

FY2006-FY2011, the cumulative total allotment to the five Gulf States examined in this report

from Clean Water SRF annual appropriations was $1.20 billion.175 The cumulative total during

the six-year period for the Drinking Water SRF was $1.16 billion.176 What portion of these funds

was used to support projects for infrastructure affected by the five hurricanes is not known.

172 For more information on the Clean Water SRF, see CRS Report R44963, Wastewater Infrastructure: Overview,

Funding, and Legislative Developments, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.

173 See U.S. EPA publication “Public Assistance for Water and Wastewater Utilities in Emergencies and Disasters,”

EPA 817-F-10-009, Office of Water, August 2010, available at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/

emerplan/upload/Public-Assistance-for-Water-and-Wastewater-Utilities-in-Emergencies-and-Disasters.pdf. See also

FEMA 322 Public Assistance Guide, under Category F, and “Federal Funding for Water/Wastewater Utilities in

National Disasters (Fed FUNDS)” available at https://www.epa.gov/fedfunds.

174 EPA must allocate the Clean Water SRF grants among the states according to a formula specified in the Clean

Water Act itself, whereas the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to develop a formula for allocating the Drinking

Water SRF grants among the states that is to reflect the proportional share of each state’s funding needs.

175 Includes $438.4 million allotted to these states in FY2009 from the total $4.0 billion in CWSRF supplemental

appropriations included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5).

176 Includes $315.4 million allotted to these states in FY2009 from the total $2.0 billion DWSRF supplemental

appropriations included in the ARRA (P.L. 111-5).



The Federal Judiciary177

The mission of the federal courts is to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed under the

Constitution. The courts are charged with interpreting and applying the law to resolve disputes

through fair and impartial judgments, and ensuring fairness and equal justice for all citizens of the

United States.178

According to the Budget Office of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Congress

appropriated $18 million in emergency judiciary funding179 for disaster relief in the aftermath of

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These monies were obligated to (1) reimburse per diem for judges,

court staff, and federal public defenders’ staff who were on temporary duty assignment, and their

dependents; (2) reimburse all judges and court staff who were on temporary duty assignment for

travel purposes; (3) pay for furniture, equipment, and security in the temporary locations; and (4)

replace furniture and equipment in courts affected by the hurricanes. Table 27 presents the

funding provided to Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, as well as the additional funding

to the Fifth Circuit.

Table 27. Disaster Relief Funding by the Federal Judiciary

(Obligations current as of November 2012; Dollars in Thousands)

Louisiana Mississippi Texas Florida Fifth Circuit Total

The Federal Judiciary $4,712 $881 $170 $345 $11,891 $17,999

Source: Unpublished data from the Administrative Office Budget Division.

Notes: All figures have been rounded. The Fifth Circuit encompasses the District of the Canal Zone, Louisiana,

Mississippi, and Texas. The table excludes $1,360 (nominal dollars) provided to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth

Circuit encompasses Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Small Business Administration180

Disaster Assistance Program

Authority

The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Disaster Assistance Program is authorized by the

Small Business Act (P.L. 85-536, Section 7(b) 72 Stat. 387, as amended).

Program Description

The SBA’s Disaster Assistance Program provides low-interest disaster loans to homeowners,

renters, and businesses, as well as to private and non-profit organizations to repair or replace real

177 This section was authored by Matthew Eric Glassman, former Analyst in American National Government, and

updated by Barry McMillion, Analyst in American National Government.

178 The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of

appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from

decisions of federal administrative agencies.

179 P.L. 109-148, Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf

of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006.


Finance Division.



estate, personal property, machinery and equipment, inventory, and business assets that have been

damaged or destroyed in a declared disaster.181

The SBA provides three categories of loans: (1) home loans, (2) business loans, and (3) Economic

Injury Disaster Loans (EIDLs). Home disaster loans help homeowners and renters repair or

replace disaster-related damages to homes or personal property. SBA regulations limit home loans

to $200,000 for the repair or replacement of real estate and $40,000 to repair or replace personal

property. Business disaster loans help business owners repair or replace disaster-damaged

property, including inventory and supplies. Business loans are limited to $2 million. EIDLs

provide assistance to small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, and certain private, non-

profit organizations that have suffered substantial economic injury resulting from a physical

disaster or an agricultural production disaster. EIDLs are limited to $2 million.

Table 28 lists the number of approved disaster loan applications by state and by type of loan for

all five hurricanes. The actual number of loans made may be somewhat lower than the number of

loan applications approved, because not all approved loan applications are subsequently accepted

by the borrower. Table 29 lists the amount of the approved loans, by state.

Table 28. Small Business Administration: Number of Approved Disaster Assistance

Loans For the Five Hurricanes

(Number of Total Approved Applications as of January 29, 2013)

Small Business

Administration Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Home Loans 2,497

14,021 86,206 31,243

15,935 149,902

Business Loans 360

2,578 12,921 4,388

2,545 22,792

Economic Injury

Disaster Loans 82

812

1,801

335 410 3,440

Total 2,939

17,411 100,928 35,966

18,890 176,134

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, correspondence with

CRS on January 29, 2013.

Notes: The SBA provided disaster loans to Alabama for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Alabama did not

receive loans for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The SBA provided disaster loans to Florida for Hurricanes Katrina,

Rita, and Wilma. Florida did not receive loans for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The SBA provided disaster loans to

Mississippi for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Gustav. Mississippi did not receive loans for Hurricane Ike.

The SBA provided disaster loans to Texas for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Ike. Texas did not receive

loans for Hurricane Gustav.

Table 29. Small Business Administration: Approved Disaster Loan Applications by

Amount

(Cumulative Loan Amounts by State as of January 29, 2013; Dollars in Thousands)

Small Business


Home Loans $96,244 $450,170 $5,445,887 $2,069,160 $686,533 $8,747,994

181 U.S. Small Business Administration, “Disaster Assistance,” available at https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/

disaster-assistance.



Small Business


Business Loans $47,052 $412,085 $1,526,241 $546,417 $324,016 $2,855,811

Economic Injury

Disaster Loans $7,221 $48,917 $111,486 $19,267 $24,277 $211,167

Total $150,517 $911,172 $7,083,615 $2,634,844 $1,034,826 $11,814,973

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, correspondence with

CRS on January 29, 2013.

Cost-Shares and Programmatic Considerations:

Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and Rita182

Administrative and Congressional Waivers of Cost-Shares

P.L. 110-28, the “U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq

Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,” which provided supplemental appropriations

legislation for the war in Iraq and disaster recovery from Hurricane Katrina, provided cost-share

reductions for disaster assistance provided to the affected states along the Gulf Coast.183 The

reductions provided to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas were among the

largest ever granted.

P.L. 110-28 provided a waiver of all state and local cost-shares for four disaster assistance

programs that are a part of the Stafford Act. These programs included Section 403 (Essential

Assistance), Section 406 (Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of Damaged Facilities), Section

407 (Debris Removal), and Section 408 (Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households).

These programs are generally cost-shared in statute at 75% federal and 25% state and local with

the possibility, under specified circumstances, for a 90% federal, 10% state and local ratio. Also

significant was the cost-share waiver for the Other Needs Assistance Program under Section 408,

which had never been waived previously. That section of Stafford states that the “Federal share

shall be 75 percent.”

Section 4501 of P.L. 110-28, also states in part, the following:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any agreement, the Federal share

of assistance, including direct Federal assistance, provided for the States of Louisiana,

Mississippi, Florida, Alabama and Texas in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma,

Dennis and Rita under sections 403, 406, 407, and 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC 5170b, 5172, 5173, and 5174) shall be 100

percent of the eligible costs under such sections.

(b) APPLICABILITY

1) IN GENERAL—The federal share provided by subsection (a) shall apply to disaster

assistance applied for before the date of enactment of this Act.

182 This section was originally authored by former CRS analyst Francis X. McCarthy and was updated by Jared Brown,

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy.

183 For more information on cost-shares see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis,

by Jared T. Brown and Bruce R. Lindsay.



(2) LIMITATION—In the case of disaster assistance provided under Section 403, 406 and

407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the Federal

share provided by subsection (a) shall be limited to assistance provided for projects for

which a “request for public assistance form” has been submitted.

The statutory cost-share waivers were provided for five states. Per capita damage for

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama from Hurricane Katrina, and for Louisiana from

Hurricane Rita, had already qualified those states for a decreased state cost-share (from

25% to 10%) through FEMA’s regulatory formula based on estimated damage. Congress’

inclusion of Florida and Texas may have been an effort to not separate out related damages

within a devastating hurricane season.

Also, the decision to grant cost-share waivers to Florida and Texas may have been in recognition

of the amount of help both states had provided to Mississippi and Louisiana, respectively, in both

the provision of emergency management resources and in hosting large numbers of evacuees in

the wake of the storms of 2005.

The “Limitation” in the legislation was intended to ensure that the projects receiving the waiver

were ones already identified by applicants and not newly created projects, or perhaps, projects not

necessarily related to the event that were attempting to capitalize on the reduced cost-share

provision. The legislation states that a “request for public assistance” submitted prior to

enactment of the bill (May 25, 2007) will require no cost-share. Any “requests for public

assistance” not submitted prior to the enactment of the bill will be cost-shared at the 90% federal,

10% state and local cost-share for the affected states. This provision appeared to be intended to

provide the more generous cost-share to those projects already selected by the state rather than

projects that could be developed or submitted based on 100% federal funding.

There have been several instances when Congress chose to adjust a state’s cost-share by

legislation. Prior to large cost-share adjustments made to several FEMA programs as noted above,

Congress also legislatively reduced cost-shares for states affected by Hurricane Rita.184

Concluding Observations and Policy Questions185 This report demonstrates not only the significant amount of assistance the federal government

provides for major disasters, but also the wide range of federal programs that are brought to bear

to help individuals and communities respond and recover from major disasters, as well as prepare

and mitigate against future disasters. Yet, this is only a partial picture of the amounts and types of

disaster assistance that have been provided by the federal government on a yearly basis. The

research focus for this report was on supplemental appropriations for the 2005 and 2008 Gulf

Coast hurricanes. The federal government, however, also annually provides disaster assistance

through regular appropriations and continuing resolutions, as well as supplemental

appropriations. For example, with respect to the DRF, Congress provided roughly $42 billion in

annual appropriations for FY2007 to FY2016 (see Table 30). This amount does not include what

was provided in annual appropriations for other agencies, nor does it include what was provided

through supplemental appropriations.

184 P.L. 109-234, 115 Stat. 671.


Finance Division.



Table 30. Disaster Relief Fund Annual Appropriations FY2007-FY2016

(Dollars in Millions)

Fiscal Year Amount

2007 $1,500

2008 $1,400

2009 $1,278

2010 $1,600

2011 $2,645

2012 $7,100

2013 $7,007

2014 $6,220

2015 $6,438

2016 $7,374

Total $42,562

Source: CRS analysis of various Administration budget documents and appropriations statutes.

Note: Table 31 does not include rescissions or transfers unless they have been incorporated in appropriation

acts.

There are indications that expenditures on disaster assistance may increase. In recent years there

has been an uptick in the number of declarations issued each year. For example, the average

number of major disasters declared per year from 1953 to 2016 was 35.8.186 However, beginning

in the 1990s there has been an uptick in the frequency with which major disasters are declared.

During the 1990s the average number of major disaster declarations per year was 45.8, the

average number from 2000 to 2009 was 57.1, and the average number from 2010 to 2016 was

58.7 (see Figure 1).

186 Congress first authorized the President to issue major disaster declarations in 1953.



Figure 6. Major Disaster Declarations

1953-2016

Source: CRS analysis of data derived from https://www.fema.gov/disasters and data provided by FEMA.

Thus, while this report provides the most detailed information on federal assistance for the 2005

and 2008 Gulf Coast hurricanes, there is a need for further research on the subject of federal

disaster assistance—including the assistance provided in response to disasters in other regions of

the United States—to address existing gaps in funding information. This information would be

useful because, arguably, congressional oversight and debates concerning disaster relief can be

better informed with more accurate data and information on the amounts and types of assistance

provided by the federal government to states, localities, and tribal nations.

Potential policy methods for addressing gaps in funding information may include requiring:

the issuance of disaster assistance reports on an annual or quarterly basis from all

federal entities that provide significant amounts of disaster assistance;

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to compile a report on an annual

or quarterly basis with funding information that details all federal spending for

emergencies and major disasters;

a standardization of how expenditure data are reported across federal agencies to

facilitate cost comparisons;187

reports to include state-specific as well as disaster-specific information. State-

specific information could be used to target mitigation projects;

disaster assistance reports to include supplemental as well as regular

appropriations data;

federal agencies to flag monies used for disaster relief that has been taken from

their regular budgets; and

disaster assistance reports to contain cost share information as well as detailed

information on state expenditures.

187 Funding information is currently provided in different formats including obligations, allocations, and expenditures.



Potential Methods for Controlling Costs Associated with Major

Disasters

If the increase in the number of declarations and their associated costs are of concern, in addition

to requiring improved data reporting Congress may choose to address the issue through a variety

of policy measures.

The following sections could be used to frame a potential debate on limiting the number of

declarations being issued, limiting the assistance provided after a declaration has been declared,

or both.

Rationale for Keeping the Disaster Assistance the Same

To many, providing relief to disaster victims is an essential role of the government. In their view,

the concern over costs is understandable given concerns over the national budget. However, they

may argue that the increase in the amount of assistance provided over the past decade is justified

because the occurrences of disasters are on the rise (see Figure 6).188 The rise may be due to a

number of factors including increases in inclement weather, population growth, and building

development. Moreover, proponents of keeping the current system in place may say that

providing assistance to disaster-stricken areas is both acceptable and needed to help a state and

region’s economy recover from a storm that it otherwise may not be able to recover from on its

own.

Limiting the Number of Major Disaster Declarations Being Issued

Others may contend that too many major disasters are being declared and should be limited. The

following sections review some policy mechanisms that could be employed to decrease the

number of declarations that are being issued. The primary option consists of preventing what may

be perceived by some to be marginal incidents from triggering federal assistance. Potential

methods to achieve this include changing the definitions of a major disaster in Stafford Act,

changing the per capita formula for determining whether a disaster is sufficiently large to warrant

federal assistance, or the use of other indicators instead of, or in conjunction with, the per capita

formula.

Changing the Definition of Major Disaster in the Stafford Act

Some argue that the Stafford Act has enhanced presidential declaration authority because the

definition of a major disaster in Section 102(2) of Stafford Act is ill-defined.189 Because of the

expansive nature of this definition under the Stafford Act, they assert, there are not many

restrictions on the types of major disasters for which the President may issue a declaration.190 For

example, some would argue that snowstorms do not warrant major disaster declarations.

188 For historical information on major disaster declarations. See CRS Report R42702, Stafford Act Declarations 1953-

2016: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress, by Bruce R. Lindsay.

189 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5122.

190 Richard T. Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security (Washington, DC:

CQ Press, 2008), p. 79.



Changing the Per Capita Formula

One potential method of reducing the number of major disasters being declared is to increase the

per capita amount used by FEMA to make major disaster recommendations to the President. A per

capita formula based on damages caused by an incident is used by FEMA to make

recommendations to the President concerning whether to issue a major disaster declaration. The

current per capita amount used by FEMA to make recommendations is $1.43. This amount could

be increased (for example, by 10%) to reduce the number of incidents eligible for federal

assistance.

If increased, Congress might require that the per capita be adjusted annually for inflation. The

DHS Inspector General issued a report in May 2012, which noted that FEMA had been using a $1

per capita damage amount since 1986 for determining during its preliminary damage assessment

process if it would recommend to the President that the event was beyond the capacity of state

and local governments to deal with without federal assistance. The DHS Inspector General also

explained that FEMA did not begin adjusting that number for inflation until 1999. The DHS

Inspector General pointed out that if the inflation adjustment had been occurring over that 13-year

period, from 1986 to 1999, fully 36% fewer disasters would have qualified for a presidential

declaration based on that factor.191

However, it is also useful to understand that the actual public announcement of factors considered

for a declaration did not become public until 1999. At the behest of Congress, it was in that year

that FEMA began to print the factors that were considered in regulation. Until then, all of that

information had been within the “pre-decisional” part of the process in the executive branch.

However, in 1999 FEMA began to identify factors considered for both Public and Individual

Assistance. That is not to say FEMA was not using the per capita amount in its considerations,

only that the process was not widely known or understood as it presently is. As the DHS IG notes,

FEMA could have been raising that amount gradually, a process that did not begin until more than

a dozen years later. On the other hand, it should also be considered that when FEMA discussed

such proposals (e.g., per capita figures gradually increasing) with Congress, the result was a new

Section 320 of the Stafford Act that stated:

No geographic area shall be precluded from receiving assistance under this Act solely by

virtue of an arithmetic formula or sliding scale based on income of population.

The Use of State Capacity Indicators

In 2001, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on disaster declaration

criteria. The GAO report was a comprehensive review of FEMA’s declaration criteria factors.

GAO recommended that FEMA “develop more objective and specific criteria to assess the

capabilities of state and local governments to respond to a disaster” and “consider replacing the

per capita measure of state capacity with a more sensitive measure, such as a state’s total taxable

resources.”

The state’s Total Taxable Resources (TTR) was developed by the Department of the Treasury.

GAO reported that TTR:

is a better measure of state funding capacity in that it provides a more comprehensive

measure of the resources that are potentially subject to state taxation. For example, TTR

includes much of the business income that does not become part of the income flow to state

191 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Public

Assistance Preliminary Damage Assessment Process, pp. 5-7. Available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2012/

OIG_12-79_May12.pdf.



residents, undistributed corporate profits, and rents and interest payments made by

businesses to out-of-state stock owners. This more comprehensive indicator of state

funding capacity is currently used to target federal aid to low-capacity states under the

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration’s block grant programs. In the

case of FEMA’s Public Assistance program, adjustments for TTR in setting the threshold

for a disaster declaration would result in a more realistic estimate of a state’s ability to

respond to a disaster.192

It could be argued that the use of TTR would conflict with the prohibition against the use of

arithmetic formulas established by Congress. However, just as FEMA’s per capita measurement

is one of several factors considered and not the “sole” determinant of a declaration, GAO stated

that TTR would not violate Section 320 because TTR could also be used with other criteria such

as those identified in regulations. Thus, some could contend that TTR could fill a similar role

with perhaps more accuracy. It may also help reduce federal costs for disaster assistance by

denying assistance to marginal incidents that could be otherwise handled by the state.

Expert Panels

Some have proposed the use of an independent expert panel to review gubernatorial requests for

major disaster declarations.193 Such panels would be comprised of individuals with specialized

knowledge in certain subject areas, such as disasters, economics, and public health. The panel

would take into account the severity of the incident as well as other factors that might indicate

how well the state could respond to and recover from the incident. The panel would then make

recommendations to the President whether the circumstances of the incident were worthy of

federal assistance based on their assessment.

Some might argue that the use of an expert panel would make decisions about whether to provide

assistance more objective. Others might argue that the use of a panel may slow down the

declaration process and impede the provision of important assets and resources. It may be argued

that the panel’s recommendation would infringe on the President’s authority to issue a

declaration. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the President would retain the

authority to issue a declaration despite the panel’s recommendation.

Emergency Loans

Another potential method to reduce the number of declarations and the costs of federal disaster

assistance would be to create incentives to dissuade states from requesting assistance. One

method would be converting some, or all, federal assistance provided through emergency

declarations into a loan program. For example, emergency declarations could be altered to

provide up to a specified amount (for example, $5 billion dollars) in low interest recovery loans.

Under this arrangement a state could elect to handle the incident without federal assistance rather

than having to reimburse the federal government for recovery loans.

192 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DISASTER ASSISTANCE; Improvement Needed in Disaster Declaration

Criteria and Eligibility Assurance Procedures, GAO-01-837, August, 2001, p.11

193 For example, S. 1630, the Disaster Recovery Act of 2011, which was introduced on September 23, 2011, and

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would have amended the Stafford Act to

authorize the President to declare a catastrophic incident if a recommendation was issued by an independent panel of

experts.



Changes to the Stafford Act

The following section discusses some potential changes to the Stafford Act that might limit the

number of declarations being issued each year.

Repeal of Section 320

As mentioned previously, Section 320 of the Stafford Act restricts the use of an arithmetic or

sliding scale to provide federal assistance. Repealing Section 320 would allow formulas that

establish certain thresholds that states would have to meet to qualify for assistance.

Section 404

Section 404 of the Stafford Act194 authorizes the President to contribute up to 75% of the cost of

an incident toward mitigation measures that reduce the risk of future damage, loss of life, and

suffering. Section 404 could be amended to make mitigation assistance contingent on state codes

being in place prior to an event. For example, states that have met certain mitigation standards

could remain eligible for the 75% federal cost share. States that do not meet the standards would

be eligible for a smaller share, such as 50% federal cost share. The amendment may incentivize

mitigation work on the behalf of the state and possibly help reduce damages to the extent that a

request for assistance is not needed, or the cost of the federal share may be lessened. The

amendment could be set to take effect in three years, giving states time to act, or not.

Other Potential Amendments to the Stafford Act

Other amendments to the Stafford Act could either limit the number of declarations being issued,

or the amount of assistance provided to the state by the federal government.

The Stafford Act could be amended so that there could be no administrative

adjustment of the cost-share. The cost-share could only be adjusted through

congressional action. The amendment could be designed to apply immediately.

The Stafford Act could be amended so that federal assistance would only be

available for states with corollary programs (such as Public Assistance,

Individual Assistance, and housing assistance). Establishing these programs at

the state level may increase state capacity to handle some incidents without

federal assistance. The amendment could be designed to take effect in three

years, giving states time to act, or not.

The Stafford Act could be amended to discontinue all assistance for snow

removal unless directed by Congress. The amendment could be designed to take

effect in three years to give states and localities an opportunity to increase snow

removal budgets, or not.

194 42 U.S.C. §5170c.



Reducing the Amount of Assistance Provided Through Declarations

Adjust the State Cost Share

Most discussions regarding state cost-shares in disaster programs and projects involve ways in

which the state amount may be reduced and the federal share increased.195 Some may contend,

however, that the opposite approach should be adopted and efforts should be undertaken to reduce

disaster costs by shifting the costs to the state and local level. Currently, state and local

governments provide 25% of disaster costs on projects and grants to families and individuals with

the federal government assuming, at a minimum, 75% of all costs.196

There is no statutory limit on the number of people that can be helped following a disaster.197

Similarly, when assessing damage to state and local infrastructure there is no cap on the amount

of federal funds that can be expended to make the repairs or accomplish a replacement. The only

limitation is that the damage must be to eligible facilities and that it is disaster-related damage.

Given that open-ended commitment by the federal government, some may argue that increasing

the state share of 25% to a higher percentage would be warranted given the federal government’s

fiscal condition. Another option would be to make the cost-share arrangement not subject to

administrative adjustment.

Disaster Loans

As mentioned previously, the assistance provided for emergency declarations could be provided

through the form of loans. Similarly, some or all of the assistance provided to the state after a

major disaster could be converted to low-interest or no-interest loans. For example, a state may

receive the traditional 75% cost share for an incident but be required to reimburse 25% of that

funding to the federal government. Loans for disaster recovery could also be incentivized. For

instance, states that undertook certain pre-established preparedness mitigation measures could

qualify for a larger federal share or a lower interest rate.

Policy Questions

Congress has always debated the federal role in disaster relief. In recent years the debate has

intensified in light of the federal budgetary environment. Policymakers have, or may ask, a

number of questions relating to federal expenditures on disaster relief to assist and improve

oversight, and to better inform deliberations on legislation designed to assist individuals and

communities respond and recover from incidents. Such questions may include:

To what degree should the federal government be involved in providing disaster

assistance? Is the federal government providing enough assistance, or being

overly generous in providing financial assistance to states?

Was the funding provided for the Gulf Coast storms delivered efficiently and to

its intended targets? If not, how can the process be improved without slowing the

provision of necessary services and resources?

195 For additional discussion on this topic see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and

Analysis, by Jared T. Brown and Bruce R. Lindsay.

196 Ibid.

197 There is however, a limit on how much any one household can receive ($33,300 at the time of this report).



How were funding allocations to each federal entity determined? Was the process

accurate, or could it be improved in upcoming disasters?

Are there increased instances of fraud, abuse, and waste when large sums of

funding are provided for disaster relief? If so, what oversight mechanisms are in

place to prevent such occurrences?

Is there unnecessary duplication of services and/or efforts given the large number

of federal entities involved in disaster relief?

The assistance provided by the federal government to the Gulf Coast was

provided, in part, by a number of supplemental appropriations. Is it better to

provide funding overtime through multiple supplemental appropriations, or to

provide the funding once through a single supplemental appropriation?



Appendix. Contributing Authors The following authors contributed sections in this report.

Table A-1. Contributing Authors

Name/Title

Randy Alison Aussenberg, Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy

David Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy

Eugene Boyd, Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy

David Bradley, Specialist in Labor Economics

Nicole Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Tadlock Cowan, Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

Joselynn Fountain, Analyst in Education Policy

Katie Hoover, Specialist in Natural Resources policy

Nathan James, Analyst in Crime Policy

Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

Robert S. Kirk, Specialist in Transportation Policy

Bruce R. Lindsay, Analyst in American National Government

Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology

Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy

Karen Lynch, Specialist in Social Policy

Maggie McCarty, Specialist in Housing Policy

Barry McMillion, Analyst in American National Government

Jared Nagel, Senior Research Librarian

Sidath Viranga Panangala, Specialist in Veterans Policy

Jonathan Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy

Rebecca Skinner, Specialist in Education Policy

Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural

Resources Policy

Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy

Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy


Congressional Research Service R43139 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED 79

Author Information

Bruce R. Lindsay, Coordinator

Analyst in American National Government

Jared C. Nagel, Coordinator

Senior Research Librarian

Acknowledgments

Francis X. McCarthy, former Analyst in Emergency Management, Government and Finance Division,

helped co-author this report. Robert Dilger, Senior Specialist in American National Government,

Government and Finance Division, provided editorial assistance, and Amber Wilhelm, Graphics Specialist,

Publishing and Editorial Resources Section, provided assistance with graphics.

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Documents

Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita ... · Federal Disaster Assistance After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike Congressional Research Service